Babulal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of

Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation

Under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Act,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of

Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation

,"Both the sentences are directed to run

consecutively

borrowers have to appear in the bank. In his cross-examination, Complainant Benuram (PW1) has also admitted the fact that he had gone to the bank",

along with co-accused Farasram and he was read over all the contents of all the loan documents and thereafter both he and Farasram had signed all,

those documents. He has further admitted that the Appellant had accompanied him to the bank just to inform him that where the finance was to be,

done. Prosecution Witness Balram, in his cross-examination, has also admitted the fact that he, Complainant Benuram and co-accused Farasram had",

gone to the bank. Before obtaining signatures, the bank officials had read over and inculcated all the contents of the loan documents to Benuram and",

Farasram. This witness has also admitted the fact that thereafter they had gone to the tractor shop, namely, Goodwill Tractors and there also the",

contents of the documents relating to finance of the tractor were read over and inculcated to Benuram and Farasram.,

Krishna Kumar (PW6), driver of the said financed tractor has also stated that he had driven the tractor purchased on finance for 3 months. The",

tractor was being parked at the house of co-accused Farasram and all the accounts relating to the said tractor were being maintained by both,

Complainant Benuram and co-accused Farasram.,

On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that a loan was sanctioned in joint names of Complainant Benuram (PW1) and co-",

accused Farasram and the said tractor was purchased and got delivered from Goodwill Tractors. From the admission made by Complainant Benuram,

himself, it is clear that all the loan documents were read over and inculcated to him and Farasram in the bank and thereafter both had signed those",

documents. Role of the Appellant was that he just accompanied the Complainant to the bank. From the statement of Patwari Pilaram Dhruw (PW5),",

it is also established that the Complainant himself had gone to this witness along with his rinpustika saying that he wanted to obtain a loan for,

purchasing a tractor and this witness had given copies of relevant documents to the Complainant. From the statements of Prosecution Witnesses,

Balram and Krishna Kumar, it is clear that though the Appellant had accompanied Complainant Benuram and co-accused Farasram to the shop of",

Goodwill Tractors, before delivery of the tractor at the shop of Goodwill Tractors both Complainant Benuram and co-accused Farasram were read",

over and inculcated all the relevant documents and thereafter their signatures were obtained and the tractor was delivered. From the admission made,

by Prosecution Witness Krishna Kumar, possession of the tractor was in the hands of co-accused Farasram, but accounts of the tractor were being",

dealt with by both Complainant Benuram and co- accused Farasram. The Complainant has not stated anything in his statement that any recovery of,

the said loan was made from him or any notice regarding recovery of the said loan was served to him. From the above, I find that no case is made out",

against the Appellant.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges",

framed against him.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,