IN RE: M A ANTHONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioner has been convicted of offences punishable under Ss. 468, I.P.C., 420 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and S. 471 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 300/- under each of the charges by the 1lth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Madras Division, confirmed the convictions and sentences.

(2.) The facts:-The revision petitioner was a. Burma Repatriate and was President of the Burma Tamizhar Sangham, Coimbatore. One, Swamysankar who was a co-accused with the revision petitioner was an Assistant in the Repatriate Co-operative Finance and Development Bank. Kalyanam who was also another co-accused was the Accounts Officer of the said Bank. Viswanathan, P.W.2, also a Burma Repatriate, wanted to obtain a loan from the Bank for construction of a house and for that purpose gave an "Emergency Certificate", Ex. P2, and the identity card to A-1, the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner asked him to meet him at Coimbatore. But no house site was allotted to P.W.2. P.W.2 then applied to the Collector of 'Nilgiris' and the Collector asked P.W.2 to produce the emergency certificate. P.W.2 then asked A-l to return the emergency certificate and the identity card. But, A-l returned only the identity card and said that he has lost the emergency certificate. However, P.W.2 did not believe him and sent a notice through his counsel. The allegation against the revision petitioner and two other co-accused is that they, with the common intention of cheating the Repatriate Co-operative Finance and Development Bank, forged a loan application purported to have been sent by Viswanathan, P.W.2, and that the revision petitioner forged the signature of the said Viswanathan and induced the Bank to sanction a loan of Rs. 5,000/- and to deliver the amount. The trial court found all the accused guilty, but the appellate court acquitted A-2 and A-3 and confirmed the convictions and sentences imposed on the revision petitioner as state above. The revision petitioner challenges the convictions and sentences.

(3.) The loan application which is purported to have been sent by P.W.2 and which is said to have been forged by the revision petitioner and two others is marked as Ex. PI in this case. A reference to Ex. PI shows that the loan applied for was Rs. 10,000. Ex. P1 is dated 24th September, 1971. P.W.I, Ranga Rao, the Managing Director of the Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank, was examined to prove Ex. PI. He admitted in his evidence that he was the Managing Director from 22nd September, 1972 till 30th September, 1975, On the date of application, he was not the Managing Director and it is in evidence of P.W.I that on the basis of the recommendation of the co-accused, A3, the loan was sanctioned to P.W.2, Viswanathan, by the then Managing Director, R. Parthasarathi. But, this Parthasarathi has not been examined. His evidence also shows that only a sum of Rs. 5,000 was sanctioned as loan in two installments of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000. His evidence also discloses that a bond purported to be by Viswanathan was also executed with one surety. The surety was one Thereza. P.W.1's evidence further shows that the bond was executed in the presence of A-2, Swamysankar who was then the Assistant of the bank. What emerges from the evidence is that a sum of Rs. 3,000 was paid in cheque and the cheque was drawn in the name of Viswanathan on the Indian Bank, Coimbatore, and the second instalment of Rs. 2,000 was also paid by means of a cheque on the Indian Bank. Coimbatore. As there was no recovery of the loan, the Field Officer of the Bank, Ranganathan, P.W.3, was deputed to notify the case and effect collection P.W.3, made an enquiry and his enquiry revealed that Viswanathan does not reside at No. 10/45, Ranga Konar Street, Coimbatore-9, the address furnished in Ex. Pl. He later found that the said Viswanathan was working in Hindusthan Photo Films Factory at Ooty. He examined Viswanathan who stated that he never applied for any loan from the Bank and that he never became a member of the Bank. P.W.3 submitted a report, Ex. P7, and on that report, P.W. 1 sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Madras. Ex. P8 is the complaint.