TULA RAM NAIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Rev. No.154 of 2009 affirming the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Baghmara (Madhuban) P.S. case no.100 of 2007 (G.R.No.1418 of 2007) whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the case was rejected holding therein that there has been sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that one Suresh Prasad Singh, the informant lodged a case alleging therein that the accused persons named in the F.I.R in conspiracy with each other got a sum of Rs.2.80 lacs withdrawn from his provident fund account fraudulently. The said case was registered as Baghmara (Madhuban) P.S. case no.100 of 2007 under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, it transpired that some of the accused persons namely, Gangadhar Rawani, Tara Pado Mandal, Bansilal Sahu, a clerk in the provident fund section of Maheshpur Colliery and Sanjay Kumar Singh by hatching conspiracy got the applications relating to withdrawal of the amount from the G.P.F account of Suresh Singh, the informant, Shashank Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Jodhan Mahto processed by putting forged signatures of those persons and then got it forwarded to the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coalmines Provident Fund under forged signature of the official of the Maheshpur Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Thereupon, Gangadhar Rawani by putting photographs over the identity card of Suresh Singh and Shashank Kumar put his signature as Suresh Singh and Shashank Kumar and got the accounts opened in the bank in the name of Suresh Singh and Shashank Kumar. Similarly, Tara Pado Mandal and Sanjay Singh by putting their photographs and signatures on the relevant documents got the accounts opened in the bank in the name of Vijay Kumar and Jodhan Mahto. Subsequently, they withdrew the amount when it was deposited in those accounts after it were sanctioned by the petitioner, being Regional Commissioner, Coalmines Provident Fund. The modus operandi adopted by the aforesaid accused persons for drawing the money from the provident fund accounts of those persons named above fraudulently on the basis of forged documents could be detected by the Investigating Officer when identity card, accounts opening forms and the applications relating to withdrawal of the amounts were seized. It also transpired during investigation when the aforesaid persons made confessions before the Investigation Officer that the application which had been forwarded by the officials of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited to the Regional Commissioner, Coalmines Provident Fund were all forged.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with that, this application has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the materials collected in course of investigation, it came to light that Gangadhar Rawani, Tara Pado Mandal, Banshidhar Sah and Suresh Singh were instrumental in getting the documents relating to withdrawal of the amount from the provident fund account of Shashank Singh, Vijay Kumar and Jodhan Mahto forged and then got it forwarded from the office of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited to the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coalmines Provident Fund and the petitioner acting bonafidely on those applications sanctioned the amount and sent the same to the concerned Banks from where those accused persons by opening the forged accounts in the name of Suresh Singh, Shashank Singh, Vijay Kumar and Jodhan Mahto withdrew it and got it misappropriated, still the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, though there has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was ever party to the conspiracy, presumably for the reason that the petitioner being Regional Commissioner, Coalmines Provident Fund had sanctioned the amount but that act never connects this petitioner with the accusation as the said act was done fonafidely which gets established from the fact that as soon as the petitioner came to know that some mischief has been done by some of the accused persons in withdrawing the amount from the G.P.F account of the colliery workers, the petitioner lodged the case which was registered as Sadar P.S. case no.301 of 2007 on 25.4.2007 before this case was lodged by the informant and, therefore, the petitioner can be said to have acted in good faith in sanctioning the amount on the applications which are said to be forged and thereby he cannot be prosecuted in view of the provision as contained in Section 11A of the Coalmines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Fund Act, 1948 stipulating therein that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or under any scheme framed thereunder and, therefore, under this situation, the court below should have discharged the petitioner from the case as there has been absolutely no material showing complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence but the court below refused to discharge the petitioner. Thus, in the circumstances stated above, the court below has certainly committed illegality and hence, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and also by the revisional court are fit to be set aside.