TRIBHUVAN NATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the summary dismissal by the High Court of Bombay of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Since the appellant's appeal was rejected in limine, there were two alternatives before us, either to remand the case to the High Court with a direction that it should decide the appeal on merits or to decide it ourselves. We decided to follow the latter course in view of the fact that a long time has already elapsed since the trial of the appellant together with the other accused commenced, and a remand to the High Court would result in still further delay.

(2.) Sadiq Hussain Shah (Original accused 1). Tribhuvan Nath (original accused 2 and the appellant herein). Umesh Pandurang and Rusi Mistry (original accused 3 and 4) were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on charges under Section 120B read with Sections 381, 411, 467, 419 and under Section 467 read with Sections 471 and 420 of the Penal Code. The allegations on which the said charges were based were that the four accused and one. Yaralikhan (absconding) entered into a criminal conspiracy between June 1, 1964 and September 25, 1964 at Bombay, of which the object was to commit theft of postal articles in the course of their transmission to commit forgery of negotiable instruments contained in them, to cheat by impersonation and by fraudulently opening false bank accounts and to obtain through such bank accounts cash proceeds under the said forged drafts and other negotiable instruments. The postal articles said to have been stolen in the course of their transmission contained bank drafts drawn on different banks in favour of different parties, the modus operandi of the conspirators being first to obtain by theft the said negotiable instruments, and then to open false bank accounts in the names of the drawees therein and to appropriate the proceeds thereof from the said banks by forging false endorsements in the names of the drawees.

(3.) Prior to July, 1964, wit. Norottam Kristi was a postal sorter at the Mandvi Post Office in Bombay. In or about July 1964, Kristi was introduced to Sadiq Hussain Shah (accused 1) by one Savant when accused 1 proposed that Kristi should hand over to him certain postal envelopes which would come to him in the course of his duties and for which accused 1 would pay him a certain amount for each of such envelopes. Kristi was however said to have refused to do so. In May 1963 Tribhuvan Nath (accused 2 and the appellant herein) approached wit. Rustam Elavia with a request to open a bank account in a fictitious name to enable him to deposit therein sums of "black money", which he said he had received in course of his dealings in textile goods and sugar. Elavia was said to have agreed to do so. On June 1, 1964, the appellant brought to Elavia an account opening form of Sangli Bank Ltd. with all the particulars therein already filled in, the name of the proposed account-holder mentioned therein being Sanghvi Keshrimal Kantilal, Mills Stores and Spare Parts Suppliers, 121 Modi Street, Fort, Bombay-1. The form also bore the purported endorsement of S. P. Diwakar for P. Kashi Nath and Co. Elavia went to Sangli Bank Ltd. with this form, there met the agent of the bank, wit. Gharpure and told him that he wanted to open an account in the said name of Sanghvi Keshrimal with an initial cash deposit of Rs. 200. The account was opened with the said initial deposit, but Gharpure did not at once deliver a cheque book as he wanted to verify the signature of the introducer and asked him to come the next day for the cheque book. On coming out of the bank, Elavia narrated to the appellant, who had waited outside the bank, as to what had taken place between him and the bank agent. Accordingly, Elavia and the appellant went to the bank the next day. But the agent told Elavia that the Introducer was out of Bombay and that he should collect the cheque book after 3 or 4 weeks. In the meantime, Gharpure made enquiries from Swastik Textile Mills Ltd. in which S. P. Diwakar was a partner. He was told that the signatures purporting to be of Diwakar in the said account opening form and of the account-holder Sanghvi Keshrimal, were both forged signatures.