State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Govind Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh vs Govind Singh

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 19, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508647

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508647
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.S. Dwivedi, J.
Decided On: Mar 19, 2007
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - Forgery - Evidence - Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) - Respondent working as secretary of village panchayat, prosecuted under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC on ground that he by putting forged signature of sarpanch, unauthorizedly withdraw some amount from panchayat acco...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

Govind Singh

Legal References

Reported In: 2007CriLJ3845

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16-11-2005 passed by jmfc, mahidpur, ujjain in criminal case no. 101/2005, whereby acquitted the respondent accused from the charge, under sections 467, 471, 420 and 468 of the ipc.2. brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused at the relevant time was working as secretary of the village panchayat kachariya. it is alleged that he had withdrawn an amount of rs. 20,000/-from the state bank of indore branch mahidpur from the panchayat account no. 01 /1000-50183, for the construction of the boundary wall of the panchayat building of the village concerned. it is alleged that on investigation, it is found that the cheque has been produced by the respondent/accused contained the forged signature of the sarpanch abdul aziz, on the basis of this, police mahidpur had registered a criminal case under sections 420 and 468, 467 and 471 of the ipc against the respondent/secretary of the panchayat concerned and after investigation filed the charge-sheet before the jmfc, mahidpur. the learned trial court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment dated 16-11-2005, acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges on the ground that first of all it is not proved that the respondent accused has committed any criminal breach of trust and used the withdrawal amount of rs. 20,000/- for his own benefit with ulterior motive. feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the state has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave to appeal under section 378(3) of the cr. p.c.3. having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent and perused the record.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/stete that prosecution has proved the fact that the disputed cheque which had been produced by the accused, for the withdrawal of amount of rs. 20,000/-from the bank concerned contained forged signature of the village.....

Full Judgment

S.S. Dwivedi, J.

1. The appellant/State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr. P.C. feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16-11-2005 passed by JMFC, Mahidpur, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 101/2005, whereby acquitted the respondent accused from the charge, under Sections 467, 471, 420 and 468 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused at the relevant time was working as Secretary of the village panchayat Kachariya. It is alleged that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/-from the State Bank of Indore branch Mahidpur from the panchayat account No. 01 /1000-50183, for the construction of the boundary wall of the panchayat building of the village concerned. It is alleged that on investigation, it is found that the cheque has been produced by the respondent/accused contained the forged signature of the Sarpanch Abdul Aziz, on the basis of this, police Mahidpur had registered a criminal case under Sections 420 and 468, 467 and 471 of the IPC against the respondent/Secretary of the panchayat concerned and after investigation filed the charge-sheet before the JMFC, Mahidpur. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment dated 16-11-2005, acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges on the ground that first of all it is not proved that the respondent accused has committed any criminal breach of trust and used the withdrawal amount of Rs. 20,000/- for His own benefit with ulterior motive. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr. P.C.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/Stete that prosecution has proved the fact that the disputed cheque which had been produced by the accused, for the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 20,000/-from the bank concerned contained forged signature of the village Sarpanch AbdulAziz. This fact has been proved by the hand writing expert's evidence and the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused from the aforesdaid charges, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

5. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that whatever amount of Rs. 20,000/-had been withdrawn was for the purpose of construction of the boundary wall of the panchayat building of the village coricdrned and it is not proved by the prosecution that the amount, if any, has been withdrawn by the accused is misused and he had committed any criminal breach of trust. Similarly, signature of Abdul Aziz, which was taken by the bank concerned, has also not been examined properly by the hand writing expert on which basis the bank has accepted the cheque and the accused has withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. Thus, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and no perversity is there on which basis the impugned judgment of acquittal can be set aside.

6. On perusal of the totality of the evidence on record, it is apparent that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been spent by the accused for the construction of boundary wall of the village Panchayat and necessary documents have been filed on which basis the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that whatever amount had been withdrawn by the accused had been spent for the construction of the boundary wall concerned. Similarly, the signature of the cheque has been identified by the concerned bank officer who accepted the cheque and permitted withdrawal of the amount from the bank and this speciman signature of the Abdul Aziz has not been compared by the examiner of the questioned document, therefore, if speciman signature of the Sarpanch Abdul Aziz is not matched with the disputed signature on the cheque no definite finding can be given that this signature had been forged by the accused/respondent.

7. In view of the aforesdaid evidence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, does not appear to be illegal or perverse which can be interfered with in the appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr. P.C.

8. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is dismissed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2007 Same Parties State of Madhya Pradesh vs Govind Singh Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.S. Dwivedi, J.

Criminal