RAJINDER GOLCHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Golcha has filed this petition under Section 492 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of F.I.R. No. 252 dated 22.7.1981 registered at Police Station, City, Abohar and the proceedings initiated thereon against him.

(2.) THE impugned F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. on the basis of a complaint made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, by the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Abohar branch on the averments that firm M/s. Suraj Mal Nathu Ram, Abohar, through its proprietor Rajinder Golcha had been operating upon an account with the Abohar Branch of Punjab National Bank since long. On 20.5.1981 the petitioner Rajinder Golcha by dishonest misrepresentation, induced the Manager of the bank to purchase one bill for a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- and the Manager in good faith purchased the bill accompanying goods receipt No. 6933 dated 18.5.1981 issued by M/s. Globe Transport Corporation, Chandi Ki Teksal, Jaipur, through its agent at Abohar and signed by Shri Rajinder Goel of M/s. Okara Transport Company, Abohar. The amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- being the value of the bill was credited to the account of the party who availed of the same by transfer entry in favour of M/s. Oswal Cotton Traders. The documents purchased on 20.5.1981 were received back unpaid with the remarks 'payment not forthcoming' vide Punjab National Bank House, Bombay Branch of the bankers. The goods receipt in question on the basis of which money was obtained was actually a false document because no goods had been transported on the strength of the goods receipt and it was subsequently learnt that M/s. Globe Transport Corporation did not have any office at Abohar. The insurance cover note was also found to be false document as no goods had been insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, Bombay. In this way the petitioner committed a fraud with the bank.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that evidence of the prosecution was closed on 19.1.1993 and statements of the accused had also been recorded subsequently. Some evidence in defence too was produced by the petitioner and the trial of the case was likely to be completed as soon as the evidence in defence was closed.