KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a fixed deposit receipt (in short FDR) was obtained by M/s. Mohd. Bux Sokat Ali from the Bank of Baroda, Branch Pali for which FRD No.001708 was issued by the Bank of Baroda. It is alleged that the said FDR was issued in the name of Secretary, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board through account holder M/s.Mohd. Bux Sokat Ali. It is alleged that when department gave certain instructions to the bank for renewal of the said FDR, the department was informed that the amount has already been withdrawn by partner of M/s. Mohd. Bux Sokat Ali then FIR was lodged and it was found in investigation that the FDR, which was in the name of Secretary, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board was shown to be lost by the partner of the firm and he obtained a duplicate FDR, which was issued by the petitioner as a Manager of the Bank, but this duplicate receipt was not issued in the name of the Secretary, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, but in the name of the firm only and, thereafter, after about three years, the amount of the FDR was withdrawn by the partner of the firm, who is co-accused in this criminal case. In view of the FIR dated 1st Oct, 1999, police investigated the matter and thereafter, submitted the charge-sheet in the court holding the petitioner and co-accused guilty for committing offence under Sections 420 and 467 read with Sec. 120B IPC. After submitting the charge-sheet, the court took cognizance on 11th April, 2000 and framed the charges against the accused persons including against the petitioner on 3rd March, 2001. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of the prosecution and one of the witnesses was examined in the court on 16th Nov., 2002 whose statement remained incomplete and at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the prosecution initiated in criminal case no.97/2000, facts of which are referred above. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that admittedly the amount of the FDR amounting to Rs.15,000.00 was deposited by the firm and it was the property of the firm. The original FDR was with the complainant department. The partner of the firm applied for issuance of duplicate FDR and the petitioner bonafidely issued the said duplicate FDR, but inadvertently, he might have committed mistake of not wiring "Secretary, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board", but it is clear from the facts of the case that there is no allegation of any dishonest intention of the petitioner at the time when he issued that duplicate FDR in the name of the firm. The bonafide of the petitioner is fortified from the fact that the said duplicate FDR was not used for encashing the amount of the fixed deposit for about three years. It is also submitted that in case, when there is no allegation of any criminal intention of the petitioner then the prosecution cannot proceed in the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in the case of State of UP through CBI SPE Lucknow & Anr. Vs. RK Shrivastava & Ors reported in AIR 1989 SC 2222 wherein the Honourable Apex Court in a matter where the amount of about Rs.54,600.00 was withdrawn from the bank account and there were allegation of involvement of the officer of the bank, the Honourable Apex Court quashed the prosecution after observing that it is well settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner there was no dishonest intention of the petitioner so as to cause loss to the bank or to any third person nor it resulted into gain to the petitioner in any manner and there is no allegation of gain to the petitioner. It is submitted that the duplicate FDR, which was issued by the petitioner was renewed by the subsequent bank officers time to time and that fact also has come on record from the evidence of the prosecution itself.