NARAIN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, in short, to be referred to as the Code) praying for quashing the order dated 21st January, 2004 of the Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna passed in Special Case No. 22 of 1995 whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected petitioners prayer as made under Section 319 of the Code to summon as accused Ajit Kumar Pandit, Tushar Kant Nag and Gulam Sabbir who were respectively examined as P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 on behalf of prosecution.

(2.) THE allegation on the petitioner, as per materials disclosed during investigation is that petitioner Narain Jha, was working as Assistant Manager, Cash in UCO Bank, Lodipur Branch, Bhagalpur during the year 1994 and on 23rd May, 1994 and 16th August, 1994, he functioned as the Incharge of the Branch in absence of the Branch Manager. On 23rd May, 1994. the petitioner made fictitious entries of Rs. 60,000/ - showing the debit of said amount in the interest accrued and payable account of the Bank and subsequently made corresponding fictitious entries in the Bank token book, ledger, cash book and other relevant records showing the debit of abovesaid amount. No voucher was prepared showing the debit of the said amount and as a matter of fact, amount of Rs. 60,000/ - was misappropriated by the petitioner by falsifying the bank records. The investigation disclosed that again on 16th August, 1994, the petitioner intentionally made fictitious entry of Rs. 39,000/ - showing the debit of said amount in the interest accrued and payable amount of bank and subsequently made corresponding fictitious entries in the Bank token book, ledger, cash book and other relevant records. No voucher was prepared showing the debit of the aforesaid amount and, as a matter of fact, Rs. 39,000/ - was misappropriated by the petitioner by falsifying the bank records. Thus, the investigation disclosed that total amount of Rs. 99,000/ - was fraudulently misappropriated by the petitioner by making fictitious entry in the Bank record. Chargesheet for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted. Thereafter, after taking cognizance, the accused petitioner was tried and in course of trial, the said P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who were Bank employees working in the said Branch, deposed about the offence committed by the petitioner. It was after the examination of these witnesses that the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 319 of the Code praying for summoning these three witnesses as accused in the case.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I, submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition for the purpose of delaying the trial. He submitted that the three persons against whom the petitioner has filed petition for summoning them as accused, no sufficient evidence has been brought on the record to show their complicity in the alleged occurrence nor the C.B.I during investigation found their complicity in the alleged occurrence and that these three persons are, in fact, the witnesses to prove the fraudulent withdrawal by the petitioner by making fraudulent entries in the relevant records of the Bank. He submitted that the petitioner who was working as In -charge Branch Manager at the relevant date had made fraudulent entries in the register showing the credit and debit entries in his own pen and that no vouchers were issued for it. He also submitted that the P.Ws. 2 and 3 were working as Assistants in the Bank on the two relevant dates and referring to the evidence of P.W. 3, at Para -6 he pointed out that this witness has stated that he had signed the register in good faith. As to the P.W. 4, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that he was not present on duty in the Bank on those dates and he had not transacted any official business on that date in the said Branch. It was also submitted that during investigation also, nothing was found against three persons who are sought to be summoned by the petitioner as accused in the case.