R.S.SOMRA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, which was pronounced by Special Judge, Solan in one trial instituted against both the appellants.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, has been that Shri R. S. Somra, appellant was the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Subathu and while so posted, he was alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with other appellant Jagan Nath Sharma and in furtherance of this conspiracy, appellant R S. Somra was alleged to have abused his official position being Branch Manager and accordingly fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs 15,000 in the name of one Shri Bhagat Ram (PW 5) on 12 -?. -1984. This accused R. S. Somra was also alleged to have conspired further and in the same manner sanctioned and disbursed another loan of Rs. 14,500 in the name of one Lekh Ram (PW 6). All the necessary documents pertaining to both the loans were alleged to have been prepared and processed by the accused -appellant R. S. Somra and the signatures of both tht loanees, i. e. S/Sh. Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram were forged by accused Jagan Nath who was alleged to be a close friend of Mr. Somra. Further prosecution case has been that this Jagan Nath also forged the signatures of the guarantors, namely, Ved Parkash (PW 8) and one Jeet Ram, Prosecution also averred that the forged invoices/quotations regarding agricultural pump sets of M/s. Meera and Co, were also prepared by accused Jagan Nath, 3. Accused R. S Somra was charged to stand trial under sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I. P. C and also under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while accused Jagan Nath was charged to stand trial under sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. The trial Court, after conducting the trial, convicted and sentenced each of the two accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 each for the offence under section 120 -B, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, each of the two accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Under section 420, I. P. C . both the accused/appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 each In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 each under section 467, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Under section 468, I. P. C. appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 each and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants were further sentenced under section 471f I. P C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs, 3,000 each, in default of payment of which, each of the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant R. S. Somra was additionally sentenced under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (d). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. It was ordered by the trial Court that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants on various counts were to run concurrently.

(3.) The aforesaid conviction and sentences have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the entire record has been scrutinised The trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, observed that the prosecution conclusively proved the following facts : (i) No loan was applied for by Bhagat Ram son of Thebru Ram of village Plasta and that no loan documents were signed by him. (ii) There was no person by the name of Lekh Ram son of Bhagat Ram in village Basti Gunana and Lekh Ram son of Mast Ram of the said village neither applied for loan nor any document was signed by him. (iii) The two guarantors Jeet Ram son of Sees Ram of village Chiyali and Ved Parkash son of Jagat Ram of village Basti Gunana never stood as guarantors for the loanees Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram. The guarantee deeds also have been proved not to have been signed by them. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that Jagan Nath accused had affixed signatures for the two loanees and the two guarantors. This inference was drawn as the handwriting expert examined during the trial opined that the specimen handwriting and signature of Jagan Nath tallied with the disputed signatures of the alleged loanees and alleged guarantors, Thus, the conviction was based by the learned Special Judge on the basis of the aforesaid alleged conclusively proved circumstances, coupled with the opinion of the expert mentioned earlier