LAWS(PAT)-1999-2-51

NADEBASI MAJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 02, 1999
Nadebasi Maji Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.9.98 passed by Sri V.N.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chaibasa in C/1 case no. 3/95, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing his personal attendance in the Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts concerning this revision petition, are that one Arbind Kumar Sethia filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa stating, inter alia, that he deposited a self cheque with the Bank of India, Chaibasa Branch, amounting to Rs. 1,28,087 to purchase the bank draft for the said amount and when his representative went to collect the bank draft he was informed that no bank draft can be issued to him as per the direction of the Branch Manager and when the complainant 's representative contacted the Branch Manager and wanted to know the reasons for not handing over the draft, it was told to him by the Branch Manager (petitioner) that neither the draft will be handed over to him nor the cheque will be returned to him. The complainant smelling mischief on the part of the petitioner filed a complaint case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, bearing C/1 case no. 3/95, which was registered under sections 420, 427, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which was dismissed by Sri S.S.Mishra, the then Judicial Magistrate, who held in his order dated 27.7.95 that no case under the aforesaid count has been made out. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, a revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa and the revision application was transferred to the lllrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, who was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Magistrate and directed him to proceed with the case. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner to appear in his Court whereupon the petitioner filed a petition under section 205 Cr.P.C. through his lawyer praying therein that he is the Manager in the Bank of India and remains busy in his official duty and is also a heart patient so his personal attendance in the Court may be dispensed with and he may be represented through his lawyer under section 205 Cr.P.C. (copy of petition is annexure-2).

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever, much less, any misappropriation which is evident from the fact that he had transferred the amount from one account to another belonging to the complainant and he was empowered to do so under the Banking Rules.