SASANKA SEKHAR PAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 255/03 which arose out of Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 87 dated 13.6.2003 and the chargesheet No. 64 dated 30.6.2003 under sections 465/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Kalyani, Nadia.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the Manager of Chakdaha Branch of Nadia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. One Ratan Das deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in the said bank on 11.1.03, 1.3.03, 26.3.03 and 5.5.03 but, said Ratan Das surreptitiously inserted digit '1' on left side of credit amounts of said Rs. 10,000/- each and subsequently withdraw Rs. 4,40,000/- from the bank. Immediately after the petitioner became aware of the offences committed by Ratan Das, he lodged the FIR on 12.6.03 and on the basis of it Chakdaha P. S. Case No. 87 dated 13.6.03 was started. Subsequently, Ratan Das has paid back the entire amount which he had taken out of his account by committing the crime. Surprisingly enough, after investigation the police submitted chargesheet against him, Ratan Das and Niranjan Bhattacharjee, the ledger keeper of the bank.

(3.) The submission of chargesheet against this petitioner indicates that in view of the bank report materials were revealed against this petitioner. In fact, there was no such bank report or any document which can be treated as bank report establishing materials against this petitioner. The petitioner being a Bank Manager at the relevant time cannot look into entire documents of a bank. The main responsibility of maintaining the accounts is with the ledger keeper and it is clear, therefore, that the alleged offence was committed by Ratan Das in connivance with the ledger keeper. The investigation was not proper and there was no document, evidence and materials to implicate the accused in this case. There is nothing in the FIR to show involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. The FIR, the chargesheet and the documents, even if they are accepted at their face value do not make out any offence against the petitioner. It would be an abuse of process of law to continue the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, and accordingly, the criminal proceeding and the chargesheet should be quashed.