NANDKISHORE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a vision application challenging the confirmation of conviction of the applicant Nandkishore by the appellate court on a charge u/s. 420 and 120 B of I.P.C. The applicant and one Rameshchandra were charged with offence u/s. 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. The trial Court convicted both of them and sentenced them to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment each. On appeal Rameshchandra was acquitted but the applicants conviction has been confirmed though the sentence has been reduced to 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. A charge u/s. 120-B I.P.C. obviously cannot survive because out of the two accused persons one has been acquitted by the appellate court. The question only remains about the charge u/s. 420 I.P.C. The prosecution case was that during the period from Aug. 1972, to Nov. 1973 or there about the two accused persons conspired with each other and forged documents in the name of a fake unit by the name M/s. Varsha Products, Gandhi Nagar, Indore and certain certificates and import license was fraudulently and dishonestly obtained in the name of the said unit. An application was also submitted for temporary registration as S.S.1. unit in the name of the said fake Industrial Unit. Certain other documents incidental for the purposes were also forged. It was said that the accused Rameshchandra who has since been acquitted, played the main role in the offence. The conviction of the Rameshchandra has been set-aside by the appellate court but the conviction of the applicant/accused has been upheld mainly on the ground that he is the signatory of all the documents which were found to be forged. The defence of the applicant was that he was a student of Xth Std. and was an apprentice proof Reader in the Press of Shri Agrawal and there his signatures were taken on some papers which were being used against him. The background of both the accused persons is quite different. From the judgment of the trial Court it is clear, from last portion in which arguments of the counsel on the question of quantum of punishment were recorded that accused Rameshchandra Agrawal was a law graduate and was Chief Editor of a local newspaper owned by himself and he was stated to be an influential person. As against this, applicant Nandkishore was only 23 years pf age at the time of filing challan. He was a student of Xth Std. He was a conductor in M.P.S.R.T.C. It can very well be inferred from the background of the accused persons that there is a grain of truth in the defence of applicant Nandkishore. It cannot be expected from a man of his means and standards to think of forging the documents to establish .a fake unit to receive imported goods under fake license and to use them for his benefit. In these circumstances the possibility that applicant was used by someone else, may be the acquitted co-accused Rameshchandra for fabricating the documents under his signatures. The applicant Nandkishore has admitted his signatures on various documents and has given a plausible explanation for having signed the documents. There is no other evidence against him except his signatures on the papers. In the circumstances there is a grave doubt about the prosecution case against Nandkishore. The conviction of the applicant specially when the co-accused has been acquitted, cannot be sustained. This revision application is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and the sentences are set-aside. The bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.