PRAJANYA KUMAR RATH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main contention of the petitioners is that by the order impugned dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela in a petition filed by the Investigating Officer of Saraikela Police Station Case No. 82 of 2004, his prayer for issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioners and two others was allowed and accordingly, it was directed by the said order to issue arrest warrant against them.

(2.) FROM perusal of the fact of the case, it appears that payment of Rs. 6,00,000/ - was made by 25 cheques of the denomination of Rs. 24,000/ - each on 19.6.2004 and 6.7.2004 of Sarba Sikhsha Abhiyan, Saraikela -Kharsawan from Saraikela Branch of State Bank of India before the fraud could be detected on 25.9.2004 by the officials of the said Sarba Sikhshan Abhiyan. It was alleged that the said amount was obtained fraudulently by putting forged signatures of the informant Sanjay Kumar and the Special Officer, The First Information Report was lodged and the police after investigation submitted charge sheet only against Rain Kumar Singh pending investigation against unknown culprits. It is relevant to mention that in the charge sheet petitioners were figured as the prosecution witnesses, who were later on examined before the court of Sri A.K. Modi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class and the trial was going on but later on the petitioners were implicated on the requisition of the Investigating Officer without any cogent reasons or materials in the case diary as alleged except on the formal memo of evidence that the petitioners had made payment against the forged cheques whereby and whereunder Rs. 6,00,000/ - were withdrawn fraudulently and that sufficient materials were available against them to proceed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Investigating Officer did not submit additional case diary or any detailed memo of evidence before the court below showing the complicity of the petitioners that they had entered into any conspiracy with the principal accused for the fraudulent withdrawal of the money through cheques from the Bank. The Investigating officer was examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.6, but he did not disclose anything or whisper against the present petitioners showing their involvement in any manner of the alleged offence or that they had conspired in the alleged fraudulent withdrawal. The petitioners had fully cooperated the investigating agency in unfolding actual state of affairs and the fact they had identified the actual culprits from the group photograph who had presented the cheques and received the payment by impersonating himself as Singhjee.