Full Judgment
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.
1. These three appeals are filed against the judgment of Court of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji. The three appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5) before us along with Narayan alias Ulhas Shantaram Dessai (A-2) and one absconding accused A.L. Fernandes (A-4) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 491, 420, 381 and 204 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. The case against A-4 was separated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji found all the four guilty and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo two years' R. I. for each of the offences and to pay a total fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of which to undergo further R. I. for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the four convicted accused preferred three separate appeals in the Court of Judicial Commissioner. The learned Judicial Commissioner acquitted Narayan, A-2 and confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the remaining three accused namely the appellants before us. Ashok Datta Naik, A-1 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 268/81, Apiceto Lobo A-5 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 267/ 81 and Chandrashekhar Shantaram Desai, A-3 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 603/81 in this Court. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The prosecution case is as follows.
A-1 was working in the State Bank of India, Bicholim Branch. He and other four accused conspired to forge a bank draft for Rs. 11,500/ - with the intention of cheating the State Bank of India. Accordingly A-1 removed from the said Bank a blank draft which was later on filled up with the help of A-4 and A-5. While A-4 filled up the contents of the draft, A-5 forged the signature of the Agent, State Bank of India, Bicholim Branch. On 16-7-69 the said draft form which was a forged document, was used as genuine by A-3 who pretending to be one A.V. Teli, a fictitious person in whose favour the said draft was issued, presented the same in the Indian Overseas Bank, Panaji for clearance and thereafter obtained the payment. For this purpose A-3 opened a Savings Bank Account in the name of A.V. Teli, the fictitious person. After withdrawing the amount A-3 burnt the passbook. A-2 is alleged to have retained the amount drawn by his brother A-3. A report was made and the investigation was commenced and after seizure of the necessary documents and completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The accused denied the offence. A-1 stated that he was falsely implicated by P.W. 25. A-2 admitted to have given some money in cheques and cash in order to save his brother A-3. A-3 stated that he knew nothing about the missing of the bank draft form and that on that day A-1 came to his house accompanied by a boy who was introduced as A.V. Teli, A-1 told him that his friend Mr. Teli was proceeding to Bombay and urgently required some money and produced the draft in question and he obliged them by opening an account and drawing the money while depositing the draft in question. A-5 stated that A-4 was his neighbour and one day he came to him with A-1 and told them that A-1 who was an employee in the Bank had lost a bank form and had to replace it, otherwise he would lose his job and requested him to copy a signature in the printed form. A-5 obliged and forged the signature of the Agent on the blank form. He added that he had no time to think over the matter as he was busy, but since A-4 wanted to save A-1, he obliged him and copied the signature on the printed form. He added that he did not commit any forgery. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses.
2. The above statements by these respective accused have been made in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. of the old Code. A-5's confession was also recorded by the Magistrate.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for A-5 in Criminal Appeal No. 267/81 submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever that he also conspired with other accused. According to the learned Counsel there is nothing to show that any such agreement was arrived at between him and the other accused. Both the courts below have examined this statement and relying on both documentary and other circumstantial evidence and having regard to the scope of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, held that a case is made out against him also. Admittedly A-5 was good in drawing and his services were utilised by A-4 and A-1 to forge the signature. On his own admission A-5 stated that he forged the signature on a form of the bank. At that time he must have fully known that it is going to be used as a gleefulnessdocument. It was this draft ultimately which was deposited by A-3 by opening an account in the name of a fictitious person and the amount was withdrawn. The plea of A-5 that he only tried to oblige A-4 and that he did not know anything more, cannot be accepted under the circumstances. Therefore it has been rightly held by both the courts below that he was a co-conspirator.
4. So far A-1 and A-3 are concerned, there is clinching evidence. A-1 was the Bank employee concerned and he took the blank form on which A-5 forged the signature of the Agent and without his knowledge these things could not have happened. A-3 admittedly opened an account in the name of a fictitious person and encashed the forged draft. There cannot be better evidence against him.
5. Learned Counsel for these appellants, however, submitted that having acquitted A-2, the same yardstick should be applied to the case of the appellants also. We see no force in this submission. The learned Judicial Commissioner acquitted A-2 having been satisfied that at no stage, he had any part to play or there is any act on his part which suggest that he was also a party to the conspiracy. The acquittal of A-2 therefore is of no consequence. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the convictions of the three appellants.
6. Now coming to the sentence, the occurrence itself is said to have taken place in 1969 and A-1 also lost his job. Having regard to these circumstances, while confirming the convictions of the appellants, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months' Rule1 under each count. The sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
7. Subject to this modification of sentence, all the three appeals are dismissed. If the appellants have not served six months' R. I. already, they shall surrender and serve out the remaining period of the sentence.