Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a borrower who, without repaying a vehicle loan, forged a repayment receipt, no-objection certificate and Form 35 in the financier's name, had the hypothecation cleared at the RTO and sold the vehicle. Although criminal breach of trust and cheating ordinarily cannot coexist on the same facts, here they were committed against two different persons, the financier and the purchaser. The Court dismissed the SLP but reduced the sentence to one year and six months' simple imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent conviction under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC was sustainable on the evidence.
- Whether the accused could be convicted under both Section 406 and Section 420 IPC on the same facts.
- Whether the sentence called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying Delhi Race Club, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation; the offence was held committed against the financier, in whose favour the vehicle was hypothecated. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860Cheating requires dishonest inducement with intention from the inception; the offence was held committed against the purchaser's side (PW4), to whom the vehicle was sold on the strength of forged clearance documents. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Sections 465, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction for forgery, forgery for cheating and using forged documents affirmed on the evidence of company officials who denied issuing the documents and the handwriting expert's report. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19)
Held
- Employees of the complainant company are not interested witnesses merely because of their employment; without material showing enmity, their evidence can be relied on. (¶ 17)
- Having taken the specific defence that the loan was repaid, the accused had to lead evidence to make it probable, for instance by showing how, when and by what mode payment was made; he produced nothing, while the oral, documentary and expert evidence showed the receipt, NOC and Form 35 were forged. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18)
- There was sufficient reliable material to establish guilt, and the concurrent conviction called for no interference. (¶ 19)
- Criminal breach of trust and cheating have distinct, mutually exclusive ingredients and ordinarily cannot coexist on the same set of facts; but where the two offences are committed against different victims, conviction under both is sustainable, as here, under Section 406 for the offence against the financier and Section 420 for the offence against the purchaser's side. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- In the interest of justice the sentences were reduced to one year and six months' simple imprisonment, to run concurrently. (¶¶ 19, 22)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed and conviction upheld, with sentence reduced to one year and six months' simple imprisonment (sentences concurrent); the petitioner, already in custody, to serve the remaining period. No costs.