Jharkhand High Court
A.N. Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2023
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 962 of 2003
-----
A.N. Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Virendra Kumar.. ....Opp. Parties.
-----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. S. Jaipuriar, Advocate.
.........
28/01.12.2023: Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
20.2.2001, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh has been
pleased to allow Cr. Rev. No. 137 of 1999 and discharged the opposite party
No. 2 in criminal case.
3. The Allahabad Bank through its Manager filed an information, which
was registered as Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 36 of 1991 alleging offence
punishable under Sections 409, 468, 420, 477-A IPC implicating opposite party
No. 2, herein, as an accused. Admittedly the opposite party No. 2 was self
Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the Bank and he withdrew his due salary.
After investigation charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections. The
opposite party No. 2 preferred a discharge petition before the trial court which
was dismissed on 1.8.1994. The said dismissal order dated 1.8.1994 was
challenged in Cr. Revision No. 240 of 1994, which was disposed of on 27.1.1999
remanding the case to the court below for re-consideration of the prayer for
discharge on the point of mens rea of the petitioner. The trial court again
dismissed the discharge application vide order dated 27.8.1999, which was
challenged in Cr. Revision No. 137 of 1999. The learned 1 st Addl. Sessions
Judge, Hazrigagh after considering the prayer made by the parties and on the
facts of the case allowed the revision petition vide order dated 20.2.2001 by
setting aside the order impugned and ultimately discharged the accused. The
impugned order dated 20.2.2001 has been challenged by the Bank Authority by
filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The opposite party No. 2 was an official of the Bank and was the
Drawing and Disbursing Authority also. He was transferred. He filed a title
suit being Title Suit No. 80/1999 challenging his transfer order. The suit was
contested and ultimately the Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff (opp.
Party No. 2) cannot be disturbed from his present place of posting. After the said
order was passed, the petitioner being the Drawing and Disbursing Authority
withdrew a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 1.2.1991 as advance against his arrears of
salary dues from September 1988 to January, 1991 and again on 2.2.1991, he
deposited the said amount. He again took an advance of Rs.1,26,000/-. It is
alleged that the said amount was withdrawn without taking any sanction from the
higher officials. Thus the criminal prosecution.
5. Admittedly, the suit challenging the order of transfer was decreed in
favour of the opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted that the opposite party No.
2 was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the Bank. It is further admitted
that he withdrew his due salary for the period from September, 1988 to January
1991. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh had found that there was
no mens rea on the part of opposite party No. 2 to defraud the Bank, rather he
withdrew the amount, which was dues to him. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I,
Hazaribagh has also found that the opposite party No. 2 was the competent
authority to withdraw the amount, as he was the Drawing and Disbursing
Authority of the Bank. It was also found that opposite party No. 2 was allowed to
hold the same post from where he was transferred and the judgment of
competent Civil Court was upheld by the higher Court. Thus, the learned 1 st Addl.
Sessions Judge has found that there is no criminality in the entire transaction,
which requires criminal trial. He thus allowed the application and discharged the
opposite party No. 2.
6. After going through the order and records, I also find that there is no
illegality in the impugned order. Once it is found that there is no element of
criminality in any transaction, which requires criminal trial, no criminal proceeding
can be allowed to proceed. The proceeding will be an abuse of the process of
Court. Thus, the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazarigagh, has rightly
discharged opposite party No. 2 and allowed Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1999,
preferred by him.
7. There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Anu/-Cp3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
