SOMESHWARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. I. Jafri, J. This application has been filed by Someshwari Prasad under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that proceedings in criminal case No. (R. C. R. 55/85) State v. Mohd. Rais &anr. , under Section 120- B/420/467/468/471, Cr. P. C. pending in the Court of Special Magistrate (C. B. I.), Lucknow be quashed.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution a self-employment scheme was floated by the Govern ment specifying the categories of persons to be benefited under educated self employment through Banks. The person could be granted loans up to Rs. 25,000/- but the basic requirement was that the borrower should be matriculate and should be within 18 to 35 years of age. Consequently in order to be benefited from the aforesaid scheme, the applicant Someshwari Prasad and co-accused Mohd. Rais applied for a loan for Rs. 25,000/- each to Bank of India through the District Industries Centre, Allahabad in the month of March, 1985. The applicant Someshwari Prasad applied for loan to run a cut-pices cloth shop. The applicant while using fake quotations and vouchers in the name of M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya purported to be situated at Allenganj, Allahabad obtained the pay order number 785194, dated 26-4-1985 for Rs. 22,000/- against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 25,000/- from that Bank. He was also given Rs. 2,850 on April 26, 1985 against the sanctioned loan which was deposited in the Savings Bank Account No. 8531 opened on March 28,1985 in the same Bank. Likewise Mohd. Rais co-accused also applied for loan by filing fake quotations in the name of M/s Kohinoor Vastralays, Allenganij, Allahabad for opeining a cut piece business shop. Mohd. Rais also secured Rs. 25,000/- from Bank of India in two instalments. The case of the prosecution further is that both the accused had conspired together to obtain Rs. 25000/- each by opening the Account No. 1911 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad and deposited the above pay order into the said account and the proceeds thereof were withdrawn by them through cheques. Both Mohd. Rais and the applicant gained pecuniary advantage by getting two loans and thus caused pecuniary loss to the Bank and cheated the Bank as above.

(3.) THE learned Counsel also submitted that the main ingredient of Section 471, I. P. C. is that the accused had knowledge or had reason to believe that the documents were forged and a duty is also cast upon the prosecution to show that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine document which he know or had reason to believe to be forged. It was urged that thus the main ingredient of Section 471, I. P. C. cannot be said to have been establishedprima facie by the prosecution against the accused in this case. I have considered this aspect of the mater very carefully and I am satisfied that the prosecution allegations do not prima facie show that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the vouchers issued by M/s Kohinoor Vastralaya by submitting them in the Bank having reason to believe that the vouchers filed by them, were forged documents. THE possibility that the accused were under bona fide belief that the said vouchers were genuine cannot be ruled out.