AMAR NATH, CONVICT Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case against the petitioner is best disclosed by the statement of P.W. 3, Khushal Chand Wadhwa. His mother Ishwari Devi, who appeared as P.W. 4, had an account with the New Bank of India, Limited. She owned property in respect of which house -tax was to be paid. Khushal Chand P.W. 3 deposed that he had gone to the Municipal Corporation Officer. Karol Bagh -one, in the month of April, 1965, with a cheque book belonging to his mother. She had signed one of the cheques. Her admitted signatures appear on Exhibit P.2. The amount was not filled in. The payee's name was also to be filled in by P.W. 3. As to why the amount was not filled in P.W. 3 stated : -

(2.) ACCORDING to P.W. 3, after about a fortnight of the loss of the cheque -book his brother's wife went to the Bank to find out the balance in the account of his mother and came to know that two of the missing cheques had been encashed by the Bank.

(3.) TO start with, P.W. 3 appears to have prevaricated on the question of his having informed the Bank. Had the Bank been really informed about the loss of the cheque -book, no cheques from the said cheque -book may have been encashed. There was, in any case, no information given to the Bank that the cheques, which may purport to have been issued by Smt. Ishwari Devi, should not be encashed.