DABASHISH MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the prosecution of the sole petitioner under Sections 408, 409, 413, 414 and 120-B of the Penal Code.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner, who was Superintendent, Regional Audit Cell, Union Bank of India, Posted at Patna, Lodged a First Information Report for prosecution Mr. S.M.R. Naqvi the then Branch Manager of the Nawadah Branch of the Bank and Mr. Raj Kishore Rai, the Head Cashier, alleging therein that he had gone to the Nawadah Branch of the Bank on 4-3-1982 for making certain investigation into the Bank affairs and at 4 O' Clock in the evening, it was detected that there was shortage of 1,20,000.00 in the cash. The said amount was withdrawn by the then Branch Manager, Mr. Naqvi, and the Head Cashier, R.K. Rai, for depositing the same in the Dalsingh Sarai Branch of the State Bank of India, but the same was not deposited. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge-sheet against the aforesaid two accused persons and on receipt of the charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the aforesaid accused persons to the Court of Session to face trial. It appears that in the meantime, the then Branch Manager, Mr. Naqvi, filed a complaint on 10-4-1982, which was referred to the police for registering a case and investigation. The said case was filed against the petitioner, the head cashier, clerk-cum-cashier, and other two accused persons. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted final report in the case. In the meantime, a protest petition in the nature of complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the police and proceeded with the complaint case. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and during the course of inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') one Md. Shamshad was also examined. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned all the five accused persons including the petitioner. Hence this application.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. He further submitted that even according to the petition of complaint, the petitioner had no connection with the affairs of Nawadah Branch of the Bank. From a bare perusal of the petition of complaint it would appear that the petitioner has been shown as Superintendent, Regional Audit Cell, Patna. It has nowhere been stated either in the petition of complaint or in the solemn affirmation or in the evidence, during the course of inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of the solitary witness that the petitioner had any connection with the affairs of the Nawadah Branch of the Bank. In the petition of complaint and solemn affirmation of complainant a bald statement has been made that all the accused persons including the petitioner have conspired. The solitary witness examined during the course of inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code has simply stated that when the bag was handed over by the head cashier, R.K. Rai to Laxmi Narayan Nayak and Shiv Nath Nayak after withdrawing the money from the Bank, the petitioner was also present. It has nowhere been stated that the petitioner has also taken any part in that. The witness has simply stated that accused Laxmi Narayan and Shiv Nath Nayak went back with the bag handed over to them. It has also not been stated that the petitioner also accompanied these two persons. These facts clearly show that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. It is well settled that if there is no evidence against an accused person, his prosecution is fit to be quashed. In view of the fact that there is no evidence against the petitioner, in my view, it is a fit case for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner.