NARENDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for quashing the criminal proceeding bearing, C.R. No. 2448 of 1974/T.R. No. 574 of 1988 pending in the court of Shri Y.P. Bhagat, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted to face trial under sections 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) This case relates to the alleged defalcation of money from the Provident Fund Account under various transactions in the Provident Fund Commissioners Office. The petitioner is a bank employee in the Bank of India, Frazer Road, Patna where (Sudhir Kumar Lahiri) had opened his account. It is said that some money drawn from the Provident Fund Account was deposited in the account of the Sudhir Chandra Lahiri who was only introduced by the petitioner and thereafter, money was withdrawn.

(3.) Mr.K.D. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that First Information Report was lodged in 1974 and the charge-sheet was submitted in this case in 1986. The cognizance was taken in 1986 and the charges have been framed in 1989, According to Mr. Chatterjee, the petitioner is neither the conspirator nor entered into any agreement with Lahiri in the defalcation of provident fund money. There is no iota of evidence on the record whatsoever to show that the petitioner had conspired with Lahiri or anybody also or was in agreement with any of them for this defalcation. He relied on a decision reported in Hira Lal Jam v. Delhi Administration, to show that prior concert or prior agreement between two parties have got to be established to prove conspiracy. No agreements or conspiracy has been mentioned by the police. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the Provident Fund CommissionerTs Officer as cheques were issued from the P.F. Commissioners Office. There is no nexus or link between the petitioner and the said office. He further relief on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, to show that unless any nexus or any link is established between two persons that cannot be any conspiracy as defined under section 120A of Indian Penal Code. He has drawn this Court attention to the provisions of section 120A of the Indian Penal Code which shows that when two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. In absence of any such, agreement, link, nexus or conspiracy, the mischief of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted.