IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102)

CRR-1707-2004 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 Shiv Kumar ... .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 06.08.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has been dismissed with modification in the sentence.

2. The complaint in the present case under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was instituted on 18.10.1985. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 29.11.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The Appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed on 06.08.2004 with the modification in sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The instant revision petition was filed on 26.08.2004 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 39 years from the date of filing of the complaint.

3. Briefly, the case of the complainant Punjab & Sind Bank is that accused R.K. Jain, Parbhash Chand Jain and R.C. Jain were the partners of M/s P.S. Jain Motors, G.T. Road, Jalandhar and were also attached with the accused M/s P.S. Jain Company Ltd. situated at 7-A Rajpur Road, Delhi whereas the accused-petitioner Shiv Kumar, Jaswant Rai Jain and Lajpat Rai Aggarwal were their co-conspirators. R.K. Jain, Parbhash Chand Jain and R.C. Jain alongwith other accused cheated the complainant bank and its other branches to the tune of Rs. Thirteen crores by adopting a well-planned and calculated conspiracy. The method adopted by the accused for executing the offence is as under:-

"That a person would be introduced to the concerned bank by the main accused R.K. Jain, P.C. Jain and R.C. Jain and his account was got opened in that bank. Lateron, that man was made to apply to the bank for a loan to buy truck chassis from the main accused. Accused R.K. Jain, Parbhash Chand Jain and R.C. Jain used to intimate the bank in writing confirming the formalities relating to sale of vehicles on receipt of the sale consideration. They issued performa invoice giving details of the contract of sale of vehicle. Relying on these representations, loan was granted which was in fact got paid by the said main accused in their own account. After the receipt of money from the bank, the main accused never sold any truck chassis to the person concerned and made no intimation at all to the bank. The loanee took no action by way of intimation to the bank nor any case civil or criminal was initiated against the main accused for the obvious reason that this crime was the joint brain work of all these conspirators.

4. In the year 1979, accused R.K. Jain, Parbhash Chand Jain and R.C. Jain introduced accused-petitioner Shiv Kumar to the complainant bank and got his bank account opened with the complainant bank. On 23.07.1979, accused-petitioner Shiv Kumar Jain, Jaswant Rai Jain and Lajpat Rai Aggarwal made representations to the complainant bank for a loan of Rs. One lac for the purchase of a truck chassis from the accused (Jains). These accused also made representations to the complainant bank for granting a loan of Rs. One lac to Shiv Kumar. All the accused also executed a number of documents in support of their said representation which were later on found to be false. It alleged that relying on the said representations the complainant bank advanced Rs. 1 lac to the accused- petitioner Shiv Kumar who, in turn, got it paid to accused R.K. Jain, Prabhash Chand Jain and R.C. Jain. The complainant bank came to know lateron that all these a