SUNIL MITTAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision No. 627 of 2006 is directed against the order dated 20.02.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2005, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, set aside the order, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 342 of 2005, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereby, remanded the case before learned Magistrate for further inquiry. Thereupon, learned Magistrate vide its order dated 03.015.2006, took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, which order is under challenge before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1081 of 2006 and under these situations, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) The case of the complainant/Opp. forty No. 2 is that he had taken loan from the ICICI Bank, for purchasing a vehicle and in order to make repayment of the loan, he had given 10 post dated cheques, each of Rs. 1702/- in advance, drawn on Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh Branch. In course of time, one of the cheques bearing No. 953814, when was presented before the Allahabad Bank to which petitioner was the Senior Manager, at the relevant point of time, it was dishonoured, on the plea of insufficient fund and thereby, Allahabad Bank debited Rs. 50/-, as bouncing charge, though the complainant had had sufficient amount in his account and consequently, ICICI Bank also charged Rs. 200/- and thus, it was alleged that the petitioner -Senior Manager of the Allahabad Bank has committed offence of criminal breach of trust.

(3.) It further appears from the order dated 26.09.2003, under which the complaint was dismissed, that in course of inquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate had called for a report from the Bank concerned and in response to which the Senior Manager of the Allahabad Bank, had reported that the cheque got bounced by mistake but as soon as mistake detected, it was rectified by making payment to the drawee. Considering this aspect of the matter, it was held by the learned Magistrate that the act on the part of the official of the Bank, was never intentional to commit offence and thereby, complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and it was observed that if the complainant is aggrieved by the act of the official of the Bank, he may agitate it under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.