MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 26.5.1989 SI Avtar Singh alongwith HC Balwant Singh and other police officials were present at Football Chowk, Jalandhar, they received a secret information that one Bhupinder Singh son of Jagtar Singh in connivance with Malkiat Singh Cashier had fraudulently got encashed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Branch Jalandhar and he can be apprehended if a raid is conducted at the house of Malkiat Singh. On receiving this information, the police party raided the house of Malkiat Singh and he was apprehended. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- were recovered from the possession of Malkiat Singh and Rs. 45,000/- were recovered from the possession of accused Bhupinder Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that this amount was withdrawn from account No. 9206 of Surinder Singh after forging his signatures by Bhupinder Singh co-accused, since acquitted and Bhupinder Singh also got issued other loose cheques from the said bank and withdrew a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 23.5.1989. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the illaqua Magistrate who charge-sheeted the accused under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 IPC.

(2.) TO prove its case, the prosecution has examined Anant Deep Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank as PW-1, G.S. Kohli, Bank Officer as PW-2, HC Balwant Singh as PW-3, Mohan Singh as PW-4, Avtar Singh as PW-5, Man Singh as PW-6, Tarlok Singh as PW-7, Surinder Singh as PW-8 and closed its evidence.

(3.) SHRI Navdeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has acquitted Bhupinder Singh who is alleged to have forged the signatures of Surinder Singh and withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner without any evidence. He further contended that the learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on record and that the petitioner is neither the signatory of the cheque nor an attesting witness. He further submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner shared common intention or conspired with Bhupinder Singh. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that when the main accused has been acquitted then the petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced.