Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd vs State And Anr on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-1015/2002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1015/2002
The Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.L. Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that bank filed a compliant
on 16.12.1998 against respondent-Hari Mohan Sharma, who is a
Clerk in the bank in Jhadol Branch, of carrying out irregularities
and committing embezzlement of the bank's money.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is consistency
in the statements of number of persons who were having
transactions regarding household goods and other items with
present respondent who debited excess amount in the profit and
loss account of bank and after debiting the excess amounts those
were credited to the account of various account holders.
(Downloaded on 13/05/2022 at 08:36:24 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1015/2002]
Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court
committed grave error by not examining Investigating Officer as
well as not calling for FSL report. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that on one hand petitioner moved application for calling
of FSL report and Investigating Officer but same were not being
considered by trial court and on the other hand these were made
the ground for acquittal of respondent. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that embezzlement was writ large and thus, impugned
judgment suffers from grave infirmity.
Counsel for the respondent submits that if any mistake has
been committed by trial court or if there was any kind of
irregularity in the transactions, then also, in any case the benefit
of doubt ought to go in favour of the accused. Counsel for the
respondent submits that the three reasons given by the trial court
i.e. two years delay, none examination of Investigating Officer and
none production of FSL report, are justified.
This Court after hearing counsel for the parties as well
perusing record of case finds that though there might be certain
irregularities, which might have happened due to inadvertent error
on the part of trial court but at the end of day if there is any
lacuna in the prosecution story, then the benefit of doubt shall go
in favour of accused.
It is not denied that trial court has not examined
Investigating Officer or the FSL report could not be procured as
well as there is delay, then too, no case for interference is made
out at this stage.
The revision petition is dismissed.
(Downloaded on 13/05/2022 at 08:36:24 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1015/2002]
It is also an admitted position that so-called embezzled
amount has already been returned by the accused-respondent.
On the oral request made by counsel for the petitioner for
change in title of bank due to its amalgamation/merger in ICICI
Bank is allowed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
62-nirmala/Sanjay-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
