Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1143 (PAT)

Abdul Aziz Ansari v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-29

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 749 of 2003 whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. Allegation in the complaint case filed by the complainant opposite party no. 2 is that he being a unemployed educated person applied for loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which Rs. 60,000/- was sanctioned by the Central Bank of India, Andar Branch. The Branch had to pay the aforesaid amount in two instalments. One Yogendra Prasad was posted as Branch Manager at that time. He released first instalment of Rs. 22,000/- on 22.11.2001 and rest Rs. 38,000/- should have been paid within 15 days of the first instalment, but it was to paid. The Branch Manager thereafter demanded a sum of Rs. (illegible ?) For payment of balance amount. This complaint petition was filed on 13.6.2003. In the complaint case the accused no. 1 is Branch Manager, Central Bank of India and accused no. 2 Yogendra Prasad previous Manager, Central Bank of India. Cognizance was taken in this case against Yogendra Prasad as well as Abdul Aziz Ansari (petitioner) who subsequently joined as Manager, Central Bank of India, Andar Branch. 4. Petitioners case is that the loan was sanctioned to the complainant under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna for the year 2000-2001. The cut off date for disbursement of loan amount was 31.12.2001. The loan amount was to be released in two instalments within 31.10.2001. So far petitioner is concerned he was not posted as Branch Manager on 31.12.2001. He joined the Branch as Branch Manager on 16.6.2003 i.e. three days after filing of the complaint. He could not have released the second instalment after his joining as the date of disbursement has already expired on 31.12.2001. In the complaint there is no allegation against him even then cognizance has been taken simply because subsequently his name was also added in the complaint petition. He could not have released the second instalment after his joining as the date of disbursement has already expired on 31.12.2001. In the complaint there is no allegation against him even then cognizance has been taken simply because subsequently his name was also added in the complaint petition. In support of this submission the letter issued by the Director, Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna has been annexed as Annexure-6 which indicates that consequent upon the decision taken by the High Power Committee, the cut off date for lapsing of sanction is 31.10.2001 and the cut off date for completion of disbursement is 31.12.2001 for the cases sanctioned for the year 2000-2001. 5. Counsel appearing for the opposite party admits this fact that period for disbursement of loan expired on 31.12.2001. He also admits that the petitioner was not posted in the Branch as the Branch Manager on 31.12.2001. 6. Considering all these facts the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code shows total non application of mind. A person who was not present cannot be held to be liable for commission of offence. Accordingly the prayer of the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case no. 749 of 2003 is quashed. This application is accordingly allowed.