HARI SHANKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision in directed against an order dated 2-4- 1973 confirming the order dated 15-9- 1972 passed by Sri P. N. Mehrotra, Magistrate 1st Class, Kanpur committing the applicant and some others to the Court of Session for standing their trial under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 466, 467,, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) IN the year 1965 the applicant was Head Cashier in the office of the Director of INdustries, U. P., at Kanpur It is said that he entered into a conspiracy with some officials of the Directorate and some other unknown persons and in pursuance of that conspiracy cheated the State Bank of INdia to the extent of Rs. 24000/-. A voucher of Rs.24,000/- purported to have been issued by Sri C. R. Mittra, Director, H. B. T.I,, Kanpur in the name of Ram Pratap Singh was drawn and the same was subsequently encashed. The allegation is that a blank voucher form and some rubber seals were furnished by this applicant, and that voucher was subsequently forged by one Ali Raza, who is now dead. The forged voucher was given, to on? Isha Khan,, who impersonated himself; as Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia and encashed the voucher from the Bank; Binda, Prasad Khanna was said to have introduced - Isha Khan as Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia. When the fraud came to light the whole thing was inquired into and the police registered a case against the applicant, Ali Raza, Isha Khan and Binda Prasad. The inquiry into the case was done by Sri P. N. Mehrotra, Magistrate 1st Class. He recorded the statements of some witnesses and eventually committed the applicant, Isha Khan and Binda Prasad to the Court of Session. Ali Raza died when the case was still at the inquiry stage.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, however, contended that the case may be remanded to the court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate be directed to record the statement of S. K. Mukherji and then commit the case to the Court of Sessions. I am afraid, I cannot persuade myself to accept this contention of the learned counsel. The case against the applicant is handing fire since the year 1965. He has already been harassed enough. Further, in similar cases against the applicant, S. K. Mukherji has been disbelieved by this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2647 of 1969 and 2666 of 1969. Therefore nothing tangible would come out by the examination of S. K. Mukherji in this case. Consequently, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by remanding the case to the Court of the Magistrate, as desired by the learned State Counsel.