AJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this revision has challenged the order dated 13-6-2005 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Criminal Appeal No. 215/04 whereby he remanded the case for adducing additional evidence by the parties and to decide it thereafter afresh.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotma, for the offence under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by judgment dated 27-11-2004 in Criminal Case No. 119 of 2002 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 3000/- on each count respectively. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of conviction against the petitioner and remanded the case to the Trial Court for taking additional evidence and disposal according to law.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that the petitioner was an employee in Jamuna Kalari Branch of the State Bank of India and was posted on the teller counter. 36 customers had deposited money in their respective recurring deposit accounts on different dates. Money was obtained from them by the petitioner, but was not deposited in their respective accounts, though the entries were made in their respective Pass Books. When the customers came to know about the fact that their money was not deposited in their recurring deposit accounts, they submitted their written complaints to the Branch Manager, Vinayak Ramchandra Joshi, who inquired into the matter and found that the money handed over by the customers had not been deposited in the Bank and was misappropriated by the petitioner. On the report lodged by Vinayak Ramchandra Joshi, a case under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC was registered by the police and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotma. During the trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of which only 2 viz. , Ranjit Jaiswal (P. W. 1) and Mahendra (P. W. 2) were examined out of those 36 sufferers whose money was not credited in their recurring deposit accounts. Relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. On appeal, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol by the impugned order set aside the order of conviction of the petitioner and remanded the case directing the Trial Court to record the evidence of those witnesses whose names were mentioned in Para 8 of the judgment passed by him. He passed this order on the ground that the prosecution examined merely two as witnesses out of the big lot of cheated customers, notwithstanding the fact that they had made written complaints to the Bank and the applications submitted by them to the Bank were though produced and exhibited by the prosecution during the trial. These applications were proved by Vinayak Ramchandra Joshi (P. W. 4), Branch Manager of the Bank. According to the Appellate Court, these documents could have been proved only by the persons who had written and signed them. The Appellate Court held that the evidence of those customers who were not examined before the Trial Court by the prosecution was essential for just and proper decision of the case, therefore, the case was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to summon the witnesses whose names were mentioned in Para 8 of the judgment and to record their evidence and also the evidence of other witnesses, if necessary, and to give opportunity to accused also to adduce his evidence in defence and to decide the case according to law.