SHEOSHANKER PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this application is that a criminal proceeding which is pending against the petitioner be quashed in view of the fact that if the petitioner is put upon his trial, that will be barred under Section 403 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) It is an unfortunate case in which the Central Bank of India has lost a huge sum of money, amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The prosecution case may be shortly stated. One Madar Bux falsely assumed the name of Rambhadur, and opened an ac-count in the Sitamarhi Branch of the Bank in the false name of Rambhadur, claiming to be the proprietor of a firm named Rana and Co, On the 23rd and 24th October, 1953, he deposited eight hundies in the Sitamarhi Branch on several parties for the total amount of Rs. 1,59,900/-. That amount was to be realised from the drawers through the Muzaf-farpur Branch of the Bank, On the 27th and 28th, forged realisation advices dated the 26th and 27th October, 1953, were received in the office of the Sitamarhi Branch purporting to have been despatched from the Muzaffarpur Branch. As a result of these realisation advices, a sum of Rs. 1,59,900/- was credited to the account of Rambhadur as Proprietor of Rana and Co. On the 28th October, he encashed two cheques in the Sitamarhi Branch, one for Rs. 80,000/- and the other for Rs. 70,000/-. The fraud was discovered, and thereafter several employees of the Bank, including the petitioner, who was the Assistant Cashier in the Muzaffarpur Branch, were prosecuted and put upon their trial on various charges. "The allegation against the petitioner was that he had told Harbhagwan, acting officer in charge of the Sitamarhi Branch at the time of consideration of the cheques drawn by Madar Bux in the false name of Rambhadur, that the party was all right and the realisation advices were genuine. He was charged with offences under Sections 120B, 420, 420/109, 471 and 471/109. At his trial in the Sessions Court, he was convicted for the offences with which he was charged, and one other employees of the Bank was also convicted of several charges. The appeal against their convictions was placed before me, and, by my judgment dated 14-11-1957, I disbelieved the prosecution case, and acquitted both the appellants. Briefly stated, I held that the identity of Madar Bux as Rambhadur had not been proved, and that, even assuming that Madar Bux was the same as Rambhadur the allegations made by the prosecution against the appellants had not been established.

(3.) In June, 1958, Madar Bux, who was absconding at the time of the previous trial, was arrested. He has made a confession in which he has made some allegations to the effect that petitioner Sheo-shanker was a party to the conspiracy with him to cheat the Central Bank. He has retracted that confession; but the police has, on the basis of first information report No. 1, dated 2-11-1953, which is the original first information report, submitted, charge-sheet against Madar BUX for offences under Sections 420 and 465 and under Section 419/109 of the Penal Code against the petitioner. The case was transferred to Mr. N. P. Singh, Munsif-Magistrate. The petitioner filed an application before him, praying that he should be discharged on the ground that, in view of S, 403 of the Cr. P. C., he cannot now be tried on the facts on which he had already been tried and convicted. The learned Munsif-Magistrate refused to pass any order on this application on the ground that all the facts and evidence in the case were not before him. The petitioner then moved the Sessions Judge who refused to make a reference to this Court. Hence he has filed this application.