HARIHAR MISHRA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Case arises out of CRLA No. 61 of 2010. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment and order of sentencepassed by learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 83/56 of1999-95. Learned trial court found the Appellant-Petitioner guilty of theoffence under Sections 120B/419/420/468/ 471, I.P.C. and sentenced himto suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to sufferfurther R.I. for seven days on each count and directed that the substantivesentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this Misc. Petition is as follows. The Appellant-Petitioner conspired with his co-convict Prafulla KumarDash, who was working as Manager of U Co Bank, Chaualiaganj Branch,Cuttack at the relevant time in the year 1988 and got two Cash Credit Loanssanctioned in the name of M/s. Niladri Motors, Proprietor -Prasanna KumarNayak and M/s. Utkal Pustak Bhandar, Proprietor -Abhiram Swain. Thecash credit limit in both the loans was Rs. 25,000/-each. The aforesaidloans were later disbursed and the cash credit accounts were operated. Later, it came to light that present Appellant-Petitioner Harihar Mishra forgedthe signatures of aforesaid Prasanna Kumar Nayak and Abhiram Swain inthe documents of the Bank. Further it came to light that there was none inthe aforesaid name of Prasanna Kumar Nayak and Abhiram Swain and boththe aforesaid persons were non-existent. In the aforesaid design, theAppellant-Petitioner cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-(two lakhstwenty-five thousand) and the Bank Officials including the co-convict Prafulla 369 INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] Kumar Dash were a part of such design. On the basis of such allegation,investigation by the C.B.I. was taken up and the Appellant-Petitioner andothers were charge-sheeted.

(3.) Learned trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, returned the finding of guilt, as aforesaid, and recorded the sentence as aforesaid. The trial court's judgment has been impugned in the appeal on various grounds. In the appeal, the Appellant-Petitioner was granted bail and order was passed staying realization of the fine. The present petition for stay - suspension of the order of conviction is moved and pressed on the grounds outlined below.