PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. In the present revision petition, challenge is to the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2011 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner was booked in FIR No.256 dated 08.09.1999 and has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 403, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and sentenced as under:-

Section (IPC) Rigorous Imprisonment Fine (in Rs.) In default of payment of fine (rigorous imprisonment) 403 02 years 2000 06 months 467 05 years 3000 01 year 468 05 years 3000 01 year 1 of 10 471 05 years 3000 01 year 120-B 05 years 3000 01 year

3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence stands affirmed by Sessions Court.

4. FIR was registered on complaint dated 08.09.1999 made by B.S. Kanchan, Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Jagadhri. As per the information supplied by the complainant in July 1999, petitioner-accused who was working as LIC agent with Branch Office, Jagadhri submitted documents for payment of Rs.6250/- as survival benefit of policy no.170173206 issued in the name of Kamlesh Kumari Sood & Co. While payment was being processed, Branch Manager Jagadhri noticed that the policy was transferred from Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar on 24.12.1998. Query was raised as to why the said payment of Rs.6250/- was not made to the policy holder on 02.04.1998.

It was on query discovered that the docket of policy was missing and policy stood lapsed on account of non-payment of first premium way back in the year 1993 and no payment was due to the policy holder.

When online status of the policy was checked, it was found that the same was showing unpaid premium due on April, 1999 and the policy was in vogue. Earlier agent code was 2081-162 which was changed to 10088-162 i.e. the code of Anil Kumar, Agent-the petitioner. It is being claimed that it was found that the docket of the policy was stolen by the petitioner from Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar and has been thereafter incorporated online in Branch Office, Jagadhri on 24.12.1998 as a mater transfer from Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar. On suspicion, Anil Kumar-the petitioner was questioned. He admitted in his own writing 2 of 10 that he has misused the password of S.S. Labana, AAO. A detailed and thorough enquiry was conducted and it was discovered that the petitioner pirated number of lapsed policies by changing their status as new masters. He opened account in the name of Rajinder Kumar and Pardeep Kumar with Union Bank of India, Bank of India and Post Office impersonating them affixing photograph of his own father Shanti Parkash. He encashed those amounts by using those accounts. It was further found that the accused-Anil Kumar raised loans misusing the policies in the name of Pardeep Kumar, his brother Rajinder Kumar and in all committed a fraud of approximately 17.76 lakhs. Petitioner was tried alongwith Sushil Kumar, Anita Rani, Shanti Parkash (his father), Inderjit Singh and Vipan Kumar.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution produced documentary as well as ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Accused Vinay Kumar, Inderjit Singh, Anita Rani and Sushil Kumar were ordered to be acquitted. So far as accused Anil Kumar and Shanti Parkash are concerned, Trial Court held that there was enough evidence on record to prove that Anil Kumar converted lapsed policies for his own use by forging the same in fraudulent manner and further held that his connivance with Shanti Parkash with respect to impersonation of Pardeep Kumar and Rajinder Kumar by operating bank accounts in their names also stood proved. Petitioner-

Anil Kumar was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 403, 467,