(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam in Crl. M.P. No. 717 of 2006 in C.C. No. 495 of 2003. The said application was one for discharge filed by the petitioner herein, who was roped in as the 2nd accused in the said case. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the materials, came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner as well.
(2.) The facts which led to the initiation of the prosecution proceedings can be summarised as under. On 17.05.2001, Sri. Thomas John Muthoot, one of the partners of the Muthoot Capital Services, approached the Station House Officer of the Cantonment Police Station and lodged a complaint alleging certain malfeasance of one Santhosh K. Damodaran, who was working as the Manager, Muthoot Capital Services, Kottayam. In his complaint, it is alleged that one Dr. Alexander Thomas had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with Muthoot Capital Services. Instead of forwarding the entire cash to the central office of the financial concern, the Manager forwarded only a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. On receipt of the said cash, a deposit receipt was issued from the central office. It was dispatched to the 1st accused. He, in turn, is alleged to have fabricated a false deposit receipt showing a sum of Rs. 1 lakh instead of Rs. 90,000/- and handed over the same to aforesaid Alexander Thomas. In the same manner, one Abraham T.K. had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with the Kottayam branch of Muthoot Capital Services. It is specifically stated that the amounts were entrusted with the Manager. The Manager, in turn, forwarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the central office and accordingly, a receipt of Rs. 5,000/- was forwarded to the Manager. The 1st accused thereafter, fabricated a false receipt showing a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and issued the receipt to the customer. He further states that in the original receipt which was forwarded to the central office, the security punching hole was shown. However, in the forged receipt, no such security hole was punched. On 11.05.2001, the de facto complainant is alleged to have checked the drawer of the Manager and found false receipts inside. Stating all these allegations, a complaint was lodged, based on which, Crime No. 102 of 2001 was registered on 17.05.2001, inter alia, under Sections 406 and 468 of the IPC.
(3.) In the course of investigation, the statements of various witnesses were recorded. Out of the said witnesses, CWs. 30, 31, 33, 38 and 40 disclosed to the Investigating Officer that they had entrusted the amounts with the petitioner herein, who was working in the office as a trainee cashier. Alleging that the petitioner had acted with prior concert, she was also roped in. After the conclusion of investigation, Annexure-A5 final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court on 30.09.2002, inter alia, under Sections 468, 420, 408, 471, 477A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.