PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed assailing the order dtd. 11/4/2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (Ambikapur) in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2016. Vide the said order, the Revisional Court has rejected the revision petition thereby affirming the order dtd. 19/10/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Criminal Case No. 614 of 2013.

(2.) The relevant facts for the adjudication of the present petition are that the two Petitioners before this Court are presently working as the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Officer of Zila Antyavasai Shahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Ambikapur, respectively. The incident in the instant case relates to the period of 1995 during which time the two Petitioners were working on the post of Executive Officer as well as Field Officer respectively at the said Zila Antyavasai Shahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Ambikapur. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in July, 1995 a loan was approved to be used as Taxi purpose. The loan application was made in the name of Kishunram, shown to be aged about 21 years, with a photograph also affixed therein and it is said that the application was moved by the other accused persons in the instant case, namely, Shambhunath, Shiva, Jage etc. Thereafter, the said loan papers were said to have been processed by the said Society where the Petitioner No.1 was working as Executive Officer and the Petitioner No.2 was working as the Field Officer. It is said that they had approved the said loan papers and forwarded the same for the release of the loan amount and accordingly an amount of Rs.2,20,766.00 was ordered to be paid to the beneficiaries. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.11,766.00 was deposited by the beneficiaries. The remaining amount was to be repaid by the beneficiaries to the said Society in easy installments. Subsequently, there was a default on the part of the beneficiaries in making the repayment and accordingly after a notice was issued to the co-accused Shambhunath, notice was also issued to the other beneficiaries and it was also ordered for the confiscation of the jeep.

(3.) It is at this juncture that Kishunram, the person in whose name the loan was sanctioned, filed a complaint before the said Society on affidavit stating that he has never applied for any loan from the Society neither has he got any Jeep in his possession which is used as a Taxi. On the said affidavit of Kishunram, the Collector, Surguja ordered for an inquiry to be conducted by the Tehsildar. Later on, the Tehsildar is said to have submitted an inquiry report to the Collector informing that the entire loan transaction itself was a fake transaction as Kishunram was not the applicant nor was he the beneficiary but it appeared that the other accused persons are said to have manipulated the documents and records and presented the application in the name of Kishunram. The Tehsildar also found that it is a case where the photograph in the application also was not that of Kishunram but was of one Bajaru, the nephew of one of the accused Shambhunath. It was also found that the actual Kishunram was aged around more than 60 years whereas in the application for grant of loan the age was shown to be that of 21 years.