RAJINDER KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision which has been directed against the order dated 11.3.1998 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa who decided to frame charges under sections 420/467/468 and 471 read with Section 120-F of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner Shri Rajinder Kumar Mittal and others.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Santu Singh and Kartar Singh son of Mal Singh residents of village Bareh applied for a tractor loan to the bank. They produced copy of the Jamabandi and khasra girdwaries from Patwari Gurbinder Singh. The khasra numbers of land belong to some other persons but the patwari in connivance with Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh prepared fake documents and supplied the same to accused Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh so as to facilitate them to obtain tractor loan from the bank. The petitioner was manager of the relevant bank at the time of the advancement and sanction of the loan. With the above allegations the petitioner was equally guilty with his co-accused in the advancement of the loan. The challan was presented before the Trial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, for the reasons stated herein decided to frame the charges against the petitioner and his co-accused vide impugned order dated 11.3.1998 under the sections already indicated above and aggrieved by the said order the present revision which was barred by limitation but vide my order dated 27.10.1998 the limitation was condoned and the counsel for the petitioner Shri H.S. Mann, was directed to address preliminary arguments with regard to the alleged illegality committed by the Magistrate in framing charges against his client. Before I proceed further, I would like to incorporate reasons advanced by the learned Magistrate in deciding that the petitioner should also be charge-sheeted under sections 420, 367, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance. Repeatedly, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while framing the charges, at that stage, the court is to look to the prima facie allegations of the prosecution. The data and material was supposed to be taken into consideration by the law courts, is the allegation, the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents which are being relied upon by the prosecution. The court can always look into the documents if any produced by the accused in order to come to the conclusion whether prima facie the person brought before it is guilty of some offence or not ? If after considering all these factors the trial Court by a speaking order had decided to frame the charge, then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that the trial Court had committed any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference of the revisional court in such order. Shri Surinder Kumar, Manager, State Bank of Patiala had stated in his statement that the loan case was passed by verifying the revenue record. He further stated in his statement that it was the duty of the manager to check the record personally before sanctioning of the (sic) prosecution Shri Rajinder Kumar, as per allegations of the prosecution sanctioned the loan without verifying the record of the revenue partwari and the land mentioned in the jamabandi. In fact the land belonged to some other persons which was mortgaged with the bank by Shri Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh. In these circumstances, there was no error on the part of the trial Court, if there was evidence of such a strong motive justifying on the part of the court to frame a charge against the petitioner. The defences which are triable cannot supersede the allegations. Those defences which go to the root of the case of the prosecution, of course, are supposed to be looked into if the petitioner had showed dereliction in his duty or that he has connived or conspired in the disbursement of the loan, he cannot prima facie, escape his liability. A triable contention is made out which can only be decided after taking the requisite evidence. To give clean chit at this stage of the charge to the petitioner would be highly unreasonable on the part of the trial Court. Mere payment of the loan by the mortgagors to the Bank does not absolve either the principal mortgator or their guarantors or the person allegedly involved in the offence nor it lies in the mouth of such persons to take the defences that with the payment of the loan, the challan cannot be put in. Had the loan was not paid, in that eventuality, there could not be any valid argument at all. Even the argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the present revision is totally devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and I order accordingly.