SAHDEO GORAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 6.9.2008 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 63 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the then Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the revision application, which had been filed against the order dated 21.6.2008 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro had rejected an application filed for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the prosecution is that a pension payment order sent from the A.M.C., Lucknow and C.D.A.(G), Allahabad was received in the Treasury Office, Bokaro. The said pension payment order was in the name of Ramdas and Bimla Devi. Against that pension payment order where three bills of Rs. 2,66,275/-, Rs. 1,35,620/- and Rs. 9,603/- were raised, the said bills were sent alongwith treasury advises to the S.B.I., Chas Court Branch. That amount as per instruction of Ram Das was transferred to the Bank of India, Jodhadih More Branch. Subsequently, when the person named as Ram Das did not turn up before the Bank of India to receive the monthly amount of pension, said pension payment order was sent back to the Treasury Officer, Bokaro stating therein that the pensioner is not turning up to receive the amount. The Treasury Officer, Bokaro in turn sent the same to the authority at Lucknow who had issued the pension payment order. There when it was found to be forged, it was again sent to the Treasury Officer, Bokaro advising him to get the matter inquired into by the C.D.A.(G), Allahabad. Upon it, Treasury Officer, Bokaro wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro who informed about it to C.D.A.(G), Allahabad where on inquiry the said pension payment order was found to be forged. Thereafter a case was registered as B.S. City P.S. Case No. 22 of 2004 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against number of the persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground that he on the request of one Lal Bihari Rajak had introduced Ram Das at the time of opening up an account by Ram Das in the Bank of India. Thereupon when cognizance of the offences was taken, an application was filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the accusation which application was rejected. Against that order, a revision was preferred which also met with the same fate and accordingly, this application has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that accepting the entire allegations, which get transpired during investigation against the petitioner, to be true, no offence whatsoever is made out, under which cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioner and other accused persons. Learned counsel by referring to the statements made by co-accused as also by this petitioner submitted that when the pension payment order was received, the Accountant of Bokaro Treasury asked one Lal Bihari Rajak, a peon, working in the said office, to call one Rajesh, a peon working in the office of D.C.L.R., Bokaro for identifying the photographs which were there in the pension payment order. Accordingly, Rajesh did identify the photographs as that of Ram Das which was there in the pension payment order. Thereafter, the said Accountant asked Lal Bihari Rajak to make arrangement for opening of the account in the name of Ram Das. Accordingly, when he alongwith one person came across with the petitioner, he introduced that fellow to the petitioner as Ram Das and said that Ram Das is not getting the amount of the pension payment order, as he does not have any account in the bank and if the petitioner introduces him, bank account would be opened so that Ram Das may take payment. Upon it, this petitioner, who happened to be a teacher in a school, introduced the said person as Ram Das and upon it an account was opened. Similar is the statement made by this petitioner before the police and that apart, nothing has come against the petitioner in the entire investigation. The statement what has been made either by this petitioner or by the co-accused, nowhere suggests about the culpability of the petitioner in any manner in the alleged offence of forgery and cheating, as the petitioner had simply in good faith introduced that person as Ram Das when he was asked by Lal Bihari Rajak. It is never the case of the prosecution that this petitioner introduced one person as Ram Das though he was knowing that he never happened to be Ram Das. Had the case of the prosecution been that, the matter would have been absolutely different whereby one may find culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offence but since it is never the case of the prosecution, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offences as alleged.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner.