STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab has filed the application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2015 rendered by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are like this; that respondents-accused Kuldeep Singh, who was Secretary of Sahowal Cooperative Society, Mokhe in connivance with Baljit Singh, Vijay Kumar and Parminder Singh obtained loans from the Cooperative Bank, Gurdaspur to the tune of Rs.7,01,116/- in the names of Daljit Kaur, Chanchal Singh, Kuljit Singh, Pargat Singh and Jassa Singh by preparing forged loan files on the basis of forged signatures of the aforesaid persons to get benefit, as out of said loans, some amount was to be waived off under "Karza Maafi Scheme" of the government. Respondent-accused Vijay Kumar verified the loan files under KCC Sugarcane Scheme whereas respondent-accused Parminder Singh got all the loan files sanctioned from the Bank. It was alleged that Kuldeep Singh-accused got benefits under the "Karza Maafi Scheme" by the loans sanctioned in the names of aforesaid persons

(3.) On finding a prima-facie case the charge under Sections 467,468,471,420,120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) Read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against the accused. However, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. After taking entire prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused denied each prosecution allegation and pleaded that they are innocent. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appraising the entire material coming on record, the learned Special Judge held that no fraud or cheating has been committed by accused-Kuldeep Singh in connivance with other co-accused in this case in getting the loans sanctioned in the names of Daljit Kaur, Chanchal Singh, Kuljit Singh, Pargat Singh and Jassa Singh by forging their signatures and submitting forged Jamabandis. The learned Special Judge further held that the loan amount has already been repaid to the bank by the aforesaid persons and nothing is due to be paid to the bank as regards the alleged loans are concerned and acquitted the respondents-accused of the charge framed against them.