LAL BIHARI RAJAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 18.2.2009 passed by Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 79 of 2004 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge for the alleged offence under Sections 467/468/471/420 r/w Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.

(2.) THE prosecution story as narrated in the written report presented before the Bokaro Police by the informant Treasury Officer, Bokaro was that he had received Pension Payment Order of one Ram Das and Bimla Devi, resident of village Kurmidih, P.S. Balidih, District -Bokaro vide P.P.O. No. S/007125/2000 A.M.C., Luck - now and C.D.A., Allahabad. The informant Treasury Officer gathered that against the said P.P.O. three bills for the payment of Rs. 2,66,275/ -, Rs. 1,35,620/ - and Rs. 9603/ - were issued and on the basis of such bills Treasury Advice Note No. 322, 323 and 324 respectively were sent by the Treasury to the Chas Court Branch of the State Bank of India on 17.8.2000. On the other hand, the pay order amounting to Rs. 4,11,498/ - was deposited by Ram Das (alleged pensioner) in his account at Jodhadih More Branch of the Bank of India and consequently clearance was obtained by the Bank of India from the State Bank of India on 24.8.2000. It was alleged that after clearance of his first payment, the P.P.O. of Ram Das was transferred in his account No. 19271 from the Treasury but the same was returned after some time by the Bank of India with the endorsement that the Pensioner Ram Das was not turning up in spite of several communication made to him to receive his pension. Enquiry was made by the Treasury Officer and consequently it was reported that the alleged P.P.O. was not sent by the A.M.C. Lucknow and that the same were forged. The P.P.O. was sent to the C.D.A.(G) Allahabad for verification and the same was found forged by the said authority in cross -check. The Treasury Officer 22 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Sections 467/468/471/420/ 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument, learned counsel explained with reference to Treasury Rules that any pension order received from the defence organization is to be verified and confirmed by sending request letter with the P.P.O. to the defence organization at Lucknow from where P.P.O. was issued, but in the instant case, though the alleged P.P.O. was received in the Treasury Office, Bokaro but it was not verified by sending the P.P.O. under the registered cover. As a matter of fact, such request letter calling for verification report was made over to Ram Das by the dispatcher of the Treasury namely Keshav Mahto and in return Ram Das brought the letter affirming the genuineness of P.P.O. in his favour and therefore, the participation of the Treasury Rules Staff in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. If the Treasury Rules could have been followed in strict sense, then the alleged forgery could have been detected at the initial stage and no payment could have been made.