SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 29, 1990, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumargarh, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 408, 420, 467, 471, 474, 477A read with Section 120B IPC.

(2.) SOM Prakash Moga, Branch Manager, the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Tibi, filed a written complaint at the Police Station, Tibi, on January 1,1988, alleging therein that Surjeet Singh was working as the Manager of the cooperative Society Since November 17, 1986 to August 4, 1988, and Krishna Kumar was working as the salesman since August 27, 1986 to Many 6, 1987 The Audit of the Cooperative Society for the period from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 was done by Shri Yadav Chand Ojha, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Hanumangarh, and during the audit, it was found that the accused Surjeet Singh and Krishna Kumar, who were working as the Manager and the Salesman respectively, had made an embezziement of an amount of Rs. 12,970 and Rs. 30, 500/ - on May 5, 1987. The copy of the audit report was, also, enclosed alongwith the complaint and it was prayed that a case under Sections 409 and 420 IPC may be registered against the accused petitioner Surjeet Singh and Krishna Kumar. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report was registered at the Police Station, Tibi, on January 1, 1988, against accused Sureet Singh and Krishna Kumar for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC. The Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against both the accused under Sections 408, 420, 467, 471, 472, 477 read with Section 120B IPC. After submission of the challan, the accused were given an opportunity and before framing of the charge, they were heard and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, by his order dated November 29, 1990, framed the charges against both the accused for the offences mentioned above. It is against this order dated November 29, 1990 that the present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record against the accused petitioner, on the basis of which the charges, against the petitioner can be framed for the offences mentioned in the order. On the relevant date, the petitioner was on leave and Krishna Kumar himself had filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he acted in accordance with the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. He has further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that Krishna Kumar was the person who had taken the money and had left the service on the very next day after giving his resignation. He has, also, submitted that with respect to the amount alleged to have been embezzled, the Chairman Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Peerkamni, has given receipt regarding receipt of the amount and, therefore, according to him, no case is made -out against the petitioner. Lastly, he has submitted that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated and the charges have been framed by the learned lower Court merely oh the basis of imagination. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court framing the charges against the petitioner.