A. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Jagdalpur in Special Case No.11/19 rejecting application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.276/19 registered at Police Station AJAK, Jagdalpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (r) & 3 (1) (s) of the Act of 1989.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a total sum of Rs.5,63,000/- has been sanctioned to complainant/ respondent No.2 under KCC and ATL limits by the ADB, State Bank of India, Dharampura Branch, Jagdalpur for the purpose of fencing of 1.740 hectare (4.35 acre) area of land by barbed wire and laying of pipeline for drip irrigation system. At the time of sanction of loan, Imitiaz Khan was posted as Field Officer, Prakash Joshi as Cashier and present applicant as Manager in ADB, Dharampura Branch, Jagdalpur. In the month of November, 2009 the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from his loan account and out of this amount, the Cashier of bank has made payment of only Rs.50,000/-to him and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to one Ballu Chawda alias Balram Chawda. Further case of the prosecution is that the work of barbed wire fencing and laying down of pipeline for drip irrigation system has been done only in an area of 1.35 acre of land of the complainant, but the entire loan amount sanctioned to the complainant for total area of 4.35 acre has been released on the basis of work completion certificate issued by the then Agriculture Extension Development Officers Shri Rupendra Tiwari and Shri R.K. Mishra. Based on the written complaint lodged on 16.5.2019 mentioning therein period of commission of crime from the year 2009 to 2016, the aforementioned offence has been registered against Balram Chawda, Raghunath Sethiya, Rupendra Choudhary, Radha Krishna Mishra,Imtiaz, Prakash Joshi and present applicant.

(3.) Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a bare reading of the entire written complaint lodged by respondent No.2 would show that loan was sanctioned in the year 2009 by the bank where present applicant was posted as Manager. Period of commission of offence has been shown from 25.7.2009 to 25.7.2016 and written report has been lodged only on 18.5.2019. In the entire complaint no allegation of any nature has been levelled against the applicant. Even there is no allegation in the complaint that at the time of sanction of loan, there was any interaction of complainant with present applicant. The complaint has been filed only when the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the complainant based on which charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been framed against him on 14.1.2019. He submits that the Court below rejected the application by recording a finding that in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the application is not maintainable. However, as there is no allegation of any nature against the applicant in the complaint attracting any of the provisions of the Act of 1989, much less the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) & (s) of the Act of 1989, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not come in the way of entertaining this anticipatory bail application of applicant. In support of this contention, he places his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & ors , 2020 4 SCC 727.