(1.) The accused seeks to challenge the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 23 -S/10 of 1986/87 whereby the appellate Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in case No. 1/3 of 1984. The accused was tried under Sec. 120 -B read with Ss. 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted for the aforesaid offences alongwith one Surinder co -accused and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ - on each count.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the accused was posted as Clerk -cum -Cashier in the Punjab National Bank, Shimla, while the co -accused Surinder Kumar was an Accountant in the same Bank. An application for loan under the D. R. I. (Differential Rate of Interest) scheme was prepared on behalf of one Suresh Chand Shop No. 11, Boileauganj, Shimla, for a loan of Rs. 5,000/ -. It was processed and sanctioned and the amount of loan was released to the applicant on the same day. According to the procedure, the loan application on Form No. PNB -548 was to be submitted by the applicant and an officer of the Bank would thereafter make a secret enquiry regarding the applicant and submit his report in Form No. PNB 550 -H and then an agreement form No. 639 was to be executed by the loanee and the authorised officer of the Bank. The loan used to be sanctioned by the Manager after having fully satisfied about the financial position of the loanee. Opening of a Saving s Fund Account with the Bank was one of the essential requirements and for opening the same his introduction was also necessary in addition to completion of certain other requirements. The sanctioned amount of loan used to be transferred to the Savings Fund Account of the borrower wherefrom he could withdraw the same.
(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused entered into a conspiracy and in order to achieve the object thereof a loan application was prepared in the name of Suresh Chand, a fictitious person. This application was not only prepared by the accused Durga Dutt Sharma but he signed this application for Suresh Chand. He also prepared the Confidential Report (Ex. P -10), Guarantee Deed (Ex. P -2), Loan Agreement (Ex. P -12), the Savings Fund Opening document (Ex. P -16), transfer voucher (Ex. P -18), Application for Loan (Ex. P -9) and Cheque No. PRH -009591 (Ex. P -7) whereon the loan amount was withdrawn from the Savings Fund Account No. 37259. The co -accused Surinder Kumar signed the Confidential Report (Ex. P -10) in token of authentication. The signatures of Suresh Chand written, infact, by Durga Dutt Sharma were also authenticated by the co -accused Surinder Kumar.