ANICETO LOBO ASHOK DATTA NAIK CHANDRASHEKHAR SHANTARAM DESAI Vs. STATE GOA DAMAN AND DIU :STATE GOA DAMAN AND DIU :STATE GOA DAMAN AND DIU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are filed against the judgment of Court of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji. The three appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5) before us along with Narayan alias Ulhas Shantaram Dessai (A-2) and one absconding accused A. L. Fernandes (A-4) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 491, 420, 381 and 204 read with Section 120-B IPC. The case against A-4 was separated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji found all the four guilty and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo two years' R.I. for each of the offences and to pay a total fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo further R.I. for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the four convicted accused preferred three separate appeals in the Court of Judicial Commissioner. The learned Judicial Commissioner acquitted Narayan, A-2 and confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the remaining three accused namely the appellants before us. Ashok Datta Naik, A-1 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 268/ 81, Aniceto Lobo A-5 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 267 / 81 and Chandrashekhar Shantaram Desai, A-3 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 603 / 81 in this Court. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The prosecution case is as follows :

(2.) The above statements by these respective accused have been made in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr. P.C. of the old Code. A-5 s confession was also recorded by the Magistrate.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for A-5 in Criminal Appeal No. 267/ 81 submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever that he also conspired with other accused. According to the learned counsel there is nothing to show that any such agreement was arrived at between him and the other accused. Both the courts below have examined this statement and relying on both documentary and other circumstantial evidence and having regard to the scope of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, held that a case is made out against him also. Admittedly A-5 was good in drawing and his services were utilised by A-4 and A-1 to forge the signature. On his own admission A-5 stated that he forged the signature on a form of the bank. At that time he must have fully known that it is going to be used as a genuine document. It was this draft ultimately which was deposited by A-3 by opening an account in the name of a fictitious person and the amount was withdrawn. The plea of A-5 that he only tried to oblige A-4 and that he did not know anything more, cannot be accepted under the circumstances. Therefore it has been rightly held by both the courts below that he was a co-conspirator.