SATYABADI PANDA ALIAS DAS Vs. RAGHUNATH MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was the complainant and had sought to criminally prosecute opposite parties 1 to 4 on charges of nusappropriation and forgery is in revision assailing the order under Section 245, Cr.P.C. discharging them for insufficient evidence. The complaint being filed against the opposite parties by the petitioner under Sections 403, 409, 465, 466 and 471, I.P.C. congnizancc was taken under Sections 406 and 467, I.P.C. The petitioner examined three witnesses in support of his case. It is the submission of Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that though the petitioner had filed a petition for calling for certain vital records and those records had not been obtained, yet the learned C.J.M. dismissed the case taking exception to the fact that the loan disbursement report and other registers of the Co - operative Society which were alleged to have been forged were not placed before him.

(2.) THE facts are that a dispute was filed by the financing Bank of the Co - operative Society before the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies against the Society as well as the father of the petitioner arrayed as defendant No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 2,000/ - with interest thereon. Since from the notice and the plaint the petitioner came to know that his father was supposed to have been granted loan in 1975 by the Society though his father had expired in 1970, he brought the fact to the notice of the A.R.C.S. who lodged F.I.R. against opposite party No. 4 with the police of his having committed the offence under Section 468, I.P.C. As the investigation in the case by the police was in progress, the petitioner filed the complaint case out of which the present revision arises. During the pendency of the complaint case, the final report of the police was received of there being no evidence in the case. On the complaint the learned C.J.M. took congnizance under Sections 406 and 467, I.P.C. against the opposite parties. The opposite parties preferred Criminal Revision No. 577/83 and the petitioner also preferred Criminal Revision No. 55/84 in this Court, both of which were disposed of by a common judgment reported in 65(1988) C.L.T. 764 negativing the plea of the opposite parties that congnizance under Section 406, I.P.C. could not have been taken and upholding the contention of the petitioner that congnizance should have been taken under Section 467,I.P.C. also. Thereafter the case proceeded both under Sections 406 and 467, I.P.C. but order was passed by the C.J.M. on 11.7.1990 discharging the accused persons.

(3.) MR . Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urges the order to be erroneous as the reason which prompted the Court to discharge the opposite parties of the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. was that the documents relating to the loan taken by the father of the petitioner had not been produced. It is seen from the impugned order of the learned C.J.M. to have taken note of the fact that on the one hand the registers of the Co -operative Society alleged to have been forged were not placed before him and though the petitioner made futile attempts to summon those documents, yet ultimately gave it up and on the other hand he had not alleged any of the opposite parties as the author of the alleged forgery. Besides, it was found from the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 2, the then Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies that one Duryodhan Swain, ex -Secretary of the Society had filed a receipt bearing No. 491032 dated 30.1.1976 for Rs. 2,100/ - inclusive of interest whereunder the loan allegedly taken by the father of the petitioner had been discharged. Though such was the case, yet the petitioner made no allegation against Duryodhan Swain. A perusal of the complaint petition does not show there being any specific case against any of the opposite parties of having committed foregery. The only statement made therein is that the signature of his father had been forged in the records as it appeared from the file and that the Society records further revealed that the loan was distributed in presence of opposite parties 1 to 4 and that they had signed in evidence of the alleged payment. Forgery essentially consists of making a false document inter alia by signing as somebody knowing it well or intending it to be believed that the person. whose signature it is purported to be is not actually his. The petitioner was hence to come with the specific case as to who had forged the signature of his late father. It could not be a vague statement. That apart, signature by the opposite parties as evidencing payment to the petitioner's father would not be forgery as even if they so signed, yet they had not signed as representing somebody else but as only themselves. The petitioner had to come with a specific case as to who had forged the signature of his father and the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. was therefore not made out. This is so particularly since positive materials came to one Duryodhan Swain, ex - Secretary of the Society having -filed a receipt showing discharge of the loan taken by the petitioner's father. It was for the petitioner to have ascertained the correct state of facts and bring allegations specifically as to if any of the opposite parties had committed forgery and without doing that, as the order of the C.J.M. shows, he gave up pursuit of the records.