LAWS(PAT)-1990-3-13

SHANKAR NATH PATBAN Vs. PRABHU SINGH

Decided On March 26, 1990
SHANKAR NATH PATBAN Appellant
V/S
PRABHU SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order dated 3-6-1986 passed by Sri M. Zafar, Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in T. R. No. 1240 of 1986 for issue of summonces for trial under the above mentioned sections, against the petitioner and another.

(2.) It appears that the opposite party had filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra on 3-5-1978, alleging therein, that he had an account in Punjab National Bank, Chapra Branch being Account No. 6784 in which he had deposited Rs. 12,243.13 paise on 9-4-1976. On 1-3-1978 he presented his pass-book to the Bank for the withdrawal of Rs. 400/-. The amount of Rs. 400/- was paid to him but the pass-book was not returned back. On demand, the petitioner, who was then working in the aforesaid Bank, told opposite party to contact another accused of the case, namely, Swami Saran Lal, who also at the relevant time was working in the said Bank. When contacted, Swami Sharan Lal, told him that due to rush of work the pass-book in question was not available and he should come to the Bank on some other date to collect the same. Thereafter, he went to the Bank aforesaid and contacted the present petitioner and Swami Sharan Lal, but they did not hand back the pass-book to him. Subsequently, the opposite party was pursuaded to apply for a duplicate pass-book which he did. When, however, the duplicate pass-book was handed over to him by Swami Sharan Lal, to his utter surprise he found that a sum of Rs. 6.000/- was shown as withdrawn from his account on 2-3-1978. Opposite party submitted in his complaint petition that he had never withdrawn this amount on 2-3-1978 or on any date. He accordingly filed a complaint case which was numbered as complaint Case No. 577 of 1978 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who sent it to the police for instituting a case and for submission of the final form. Accordingly, Chapra Town P. S. Case No. 21 of 1979 under Sections 420, 406 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the petitioner and Swami Sharan Lal. The police, however, on the completion of the investigation submitted a final report dated 30-9-1983 showing that there was no evidence against the petitioner and Swami Sharan Lal. This final report, so called, was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12-1-1984.

(3.) Thereafter, the opposite party filed a protest petition in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1-2-1984, alleging therein, that though the final report was submitted by the police and was accepted by the Court on 12-1-1984, he had no knowledge about it. His witnesses had fully supported his case before the police and there was sufficient material for the submission of the charge sheet. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner and Swami Sharan Lal be put on trial. The opposite party was examined on solemn affirmation by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-6-1984 and on the same date the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that he will hold an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. On 18-1-1985 a witness was examined before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Subsequently, as it would appear from the order sheet on 21-11-1985, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case under Section 192 of the Code to the Court of Sri M. Zafar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, for the purposes of enquiry and disposal. It was before this Judicial Magistrate that another witness was examined on 5-4-1986 in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 3-6-1986, the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered for issuing summonses to the petitioner and Swami Sharan Lal. It is against this order in particular that the present revision application has been filed.