NIRANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24-4-2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal rejecting an application under Section 239 Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner in G. R. Case No. 896 of 2005.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner along with two others have been implicated under Sections 409/417/419/ 420/467/468/471/34 I. P. C. in G. R. case no. 896 of 2005 of the Court of S. D. J. M. , dhenkanal (subsequently transferred to the court of C. J. M. , Dhenkanal ). As per the f. I. R. story, the informant, while working as a Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Deogaon branch received a complaint from the account holders of S. B. Account No. 200 that a sum of Rs. 56,000/- had been withdrawn from the said account without their knowledge. The informant lodged an F. I. R. before the Police station about the withdrawal of money by the present petitioner and one basudev Dehury (Head Cashier ). The police registered a case, took up investigation and ultimately filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above sections. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 Cr. P. C. for discharge, but the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, after hearing the parties, rejected the said petition as there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner. He also fixed the date for hearing on the charge.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner to proceed against him under Section 409/420/468/471/34 i. P. C. He also submitted that at the relevant time he was daftary and was promoted as clerk-cum-cashier with effect from 21-5-2005. The Branch Manager in order to save his skin has foisted this case to harass the present petitioner. In the event of withdrawal of money from an account it is the duty of the Passing Officer to compare and verify the signatures on the withdrawal slip with the specimen signatures available in the bank. The duty of the Cashier at the cash counter is to honour the pay slip duly passed by the Passing Officer. Thus the daftary of the Bank has absolutely no role to play in such type of transactions. The petitioner being a daftary at the relevant time is in no way connected with the alleged offence. There was even no reasonable cause for him to know about the occurrence and when it took place. In support of his contention, he cited decisions in Mr. Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 20 O. C. R. (S. C.) 194 : (2000 Cri LJ 4597) and union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366 : (1979 Cri LJ 154 ).