9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to enquire into or try the case. However, as observed by the High Court, during the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave the specimen signatures willingly. In Sukhvinder Singh's case, specimen writing of accused was taken as per the direction of the tehsildar; whereas in the present case PW-5 and PW-7 were produced before the Executive Magistrate by the police with a request that their signatures be taken by the Executive Magistrate - Sukhvinder Singh's case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. High Court further relied on another decision rendered in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain's case wherein in the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held that procurement of specimen handwriting of accused by Naib Tehsildar was not in violation of Section 73 of Evidence Act. In the present case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course of investigation cannot be disputed. In any event, even dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear oral evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in the loan a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ukh Ram, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. During enquiry, it further came to light that disbursement of loans was not actually made to the beneficiaries. An FIR was registered and on completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the government, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant-Sukh Ram Gram Sewak, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. Charges were framed against the Appellant and the said accused Under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code and Under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave their specimen signatures in the presence of the executive magistrate and the same were sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with their disputed signatures in the loan application and other documents. Handwriting expert opined that the signatures in the loan application and other documents did not match the signatures of Nathu Ram, Kirpu and others but only matched the signature of Appellant-Sukh Ram. 5. To substantiate the charges, in the trial cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns were verified by the Appellant. High Court acquitted Balbir Singh (BDO) observing that there was lack of evidence suggesting conspiracy and held that no criminal conspiracy could be made out. The plea of Arun Kumar Sood, Bank Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat that he released the loan amounts because the loans were sanctioned by Balbir Singh (BDO) and he disbursed the amounts when the loanees were identified before him by the Appellant was also accepted by the High Court and Arun Kumar Sood, Bank Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat was acquitted. The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the Appellant guilty of forging loan applications of PW-5 and PW-7 (Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW7/A) and other documents and convicted him for the offences punishable Under Sections 468 Indian Penal Code and also for the offence of using said forged applications as genuine punishable Under Section 471 Indian Penal Code. On being convicted, the Appellant appeared before the High Court and he was questioned about the sentence and the High Court sentenced the Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the offences for he had been convicted. Bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the beneficiaries but was misappropriated by the Appellant and others. 12. To substantiate the prosecution case, PW-5 Nathu Ram, PW-6 Sant Ram and PW-8 Garja Ram were examined who deposed that they did not apply for any loan and nor did they put their signatures in the documents. PW-5 Nathu Ram has categorically stated that he did not apply for any loan from the UCO Bank Darlalghat and that application for loan Exs. PW5/A and other documents, PW5/B and PW5/C were not signed by him. Likewise, PW-6 Sant Ram has also stated that he did not apply for any loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and specifically denied the execution of the loan documents (Exs. PW6/A to PW6/G). PW-7 Kirpu has also deposed that he had not signed any document for obtaining loan. PW-8 Garja Ram, the alleged beneficiary, has stated that he is an illiterate and does not sign and only thumb marks documents. PW-8 has further stated that he has never applied for loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and never visited the bank for that purpose and has also not made any application for grant of loan. The statement of the above witnesses would clearly show that the documents were forged to avail the loan and the loan amount and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, the authority-Executive Magistrate before whom the specimen signatures were given did not have the authority to enquire into or try the case. However, as observed by the High Court, during the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave the specimen signatures willingly. In Sukhvinder Singh's case, specimen writing of accused was taken as per the direction of the tehsildar; whereas in the present case PW-5 and PW-7 were produced before the Executive Magistrate by the police with a request that their signatures be taken by the Executive Magistrate. Sukhvinder Singh's case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. High Court further relied on another decision rendered in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain's case wherein in the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held that procurement of specimen handwriting of accused by Naib Tehsildar was not in violation of Section 73 of Evidence Act. 17. The question is whether the Judicial Magistrate/Executive Magistrate was authorized to take specimen writing and signatures of the said accused during the investigation of the case when no matter was pending before either of them. Section 311A of Code of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? Obviously not. If not, why should not make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the court Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings? 19. After referring to Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1980 in Ram Babu Misra's case, this Court suggested that a suitable legislation be made along its lines to provide for investiture of Magistrates with powers to issue directions to any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures and handwriting. Accordingly, a new Section 311A was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 311A Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: Section 311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.-If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
