Using forged documents to secure bank loan by creating false mortgage constitutes cheating under Sections 420, 471 r/w 468 IPC.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.224 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.13972 of 2007, on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town at Chennai, dated 13.07.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections

420, 471 read with 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, in February 2002, the first petitioner/A1 approached the Chief Manager at Karnataka Bank Limited, George Town Branch, seeking a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to meet his business expansion. As collateral security, the accused A1 & A2 produced the documents relating the properties situated in S.No.565 & 566 at Senneerkuppam Village. On the basis of the legal opinion and valuation certificate for the said property, the loan was sanctioned for Rs.20,00,000/-. On 08.04.2002, the accused, deposited title deeds and documents for the purpose of creating a mortgage towards the said loan. The accused have withdrawn Rs.18,00,000/- out of the sanctioned amount. Subsequently, the accused defaulted in repayment of the loan. On verification of the documents, the Bank came to know that the accused had deposited forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of availing the said said loan. Hence, a complaint was registered.

3. On the complaint, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 415, 416, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 120 (b) IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken on file in CC.No.13972 of 2007. In order to prove the case, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exs.P1 to P25. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 471 read with 468 IPC. They were sentenced them to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 r/w 468 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without following the mandate prescribed under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and there is no whisper in the complaint about the lodging of the complaint to the concerned Police Station. He further submitted that Ex.P12 and P13, the title deed and mortgage deed, were not disputed and there is nothing on record to dispute the genuineness of the said Exhibits. In order to challenge the genuineness of Exs.P5, P7, P9 and P23, the prosecution did not produce any evidence. Without considering the above facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court mechanically convicted the petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by producing forged documents and had withdrawn Rs.18,00,000/-. Upon verification, it was found that the mortgaged property did not belong to the accused and that the documents, including legal heirship an