VIJAY KUMAR DHIR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar Dhir has filed this revision petition to challenge the rejection of an application filed by him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby the four respondents (respondents No. 2 to 5) were sought to be summoned for trial. The application was decided by Special Judge, C.B.I. Patiala on August 17, 2001. C.B.I. has not challenged the order but the challenge has come from the main accused. There can be any number of reasons why an accused would like to summon all his companions in crime as accused but more important ones would seem to be delay the trial, to ensure that the co- accused who are to be summoned are disqualified as witnesses and to generally create confusion in the hope that being the main accused he would get benefit of the confusion leading to doubt.

(2.) VIJAY Kumar Dhir was a Clerk-cum-Cashier of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Moga while B.R. Malhotra was a Passing Officer in the same branch. They were sent up for trial while Gurdip Singh, SK Dua, KB Sharma and Ms. Vibha Arora were placed in column 2. The prosecution case was that Dhir had made different fictitious entries in inoperative accounts without making credit vouchers and had prepared withdrawal vouchers/forms in his own handwriting by forgoing the signatures of the account holders on the said forms. Eight of such forms were passed by BR Malhotra while one each had been passed by SK Dua and Gurdip Singh. Vibha Arora and KB Sharma had made the various payments on the basis of the withdrawal forms. The question which arose for determination was whether respondents 2 to 5 should be summoned to stand trial along with Dhir and Malhotra. Before the trial court C.B.I. had opposed the application on the ground that it had been filed only to delay the proceedings at a stage when the prosecution had already stood concluded its case.

(3.) LEARNED trial court had thoroughly examined all the aspects of the case and found no ground whatsoever to summon respondents 2 to 5. The order of the trial court is valid, no ground exists to interfere with the impugned order whereby request for summoning respondents 2 to 5 had been declined. In view of the above, the petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.