UMA SABNAVIS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the two petitioners have made a prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding including the order dated 3-2-1992 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 36-AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ('the Act' for short) and has directed issue of summons against them.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as follows: Opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition (a copy of which is Annexure-1 to this petition) wherein he stated, inter alia, that on 1-10-1991 he had gone to deposit in the Bank of India (Rajendra Nagar Branch) a sum of Rs. 7400/- in his current account and on that day on the receipt counter of the Bank petitioner No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Mishra), a Cashier in the Bank, was on duty and petitioner No.l, Uma Sabnavis, was the Branch Manager of the Bank. The opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'opposite party') had filled up a pay-in-slip for making the deposit and requested the Cashier to receive the same for depositing. The amount, which he wanted to deposit consisted of some notes of Rs. 100/-, some of Rs. 50/-, some of Rs. 20/- and some notes of Rs. 10/-, and there were two hundred notes of Rs. 2/- denomination. The opposite party alleged in his complaint petition that the petitioner No.2, the Cashier, refused to receive the notes of rupees 2 (two) denomination without assigning any reason for refusal, inspite of several request made by the opposite party to accept the amount. The opposite party (when he failed to persuade the Cashier to receive the amount) met the Branch Manager, petitioner No. 1; but the Branch Manager did not give proper hearing in the matter and asked the opposite party to request the Cashier for accepting the money. It was further alleged that the acts of the petitioners were illegal and had the object of undermining the confidence of the depositors in the Banking Company.

(3.) On filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and two further witnesses, who had been produced by the complainant, and passed the impugned order dated 3-2-1992, observing that on perusal of the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidence of witnesses a prima facie case under Section 36-AD of the Act was made out, and accordingly he took cognizance of the offence and directed issue of summons to the petitioners.