Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 428 (JHR)

Naurath Prasad Giri v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-04-21

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2006
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought about by the petitioner Naurath Prasad Giri for quashing the order impugned whereby the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and another was taken on 24.8.2005 by the C.J.M., Dhanbad in Gobindpur P.S. Case No. 70 of 2004 corresponding to G.R.No.870/04 presently pending in the Court of Shri S.P. Thakur, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 2. The brief fact of the case is that a written report was presented by Senior Manager, Gyanendra Nath Saha of Allahabad Bank, Govindpur Branch before the Officer-in-Charge of Govindpur Police Station on 17.3.2004 stating inter alia that in course of transaction of business of Bank when the locker of the customer Meena Gupta and Nawal Gupta of Tundi Road, Gobindpur was broken open on 28.6.2002, a cash of Rs. 30,01,000/- was found therein and the petitioner who was the then the Senior Manager of Govindpur Branch of Allahabad Bank had put the said amount in a sealed packet and kept in a separate locker. Pursuant to the direction of the Regional Office, Ranchi when the said separate locker was opened in presence of six witnesses and the cash was counted it was found that Rs. 10,00,000/- from the total amount of Rs. 30,01,000/- were missing. It was stated that the key of that locker where the amount was kept in plastic cover with stapling of the packet was finally kept in the iron chest installed in the strong room of the Branch. It was further stated that strong room could be opened jointly with the keys of the Branch Manager as well as Cashier Incharge and the person who had given effect to such occurrence was certainly known person having acquainted with the functioning of the Bank as well as known to the places where the keys were used to be kept. It was stated that the petitioner was the then Senior Manager of the Branch and whenever the officiating head cashier used to proceed on leave, he used to keep the keys of the strong room after conclusion of the Banks work in the almirah of the Branch Manager. It was explained that the keys put by the head cashier of the strong room in the almirah of Branch Manager could be used for opening the strong room, cash voult and locker etc. by the master key. It was explained that the keys put by the head cashier of the strong room in the almirah of Branch Manager could be used for opening the strong room, cash voult and locker etc. by the master key. Suspicion was raised against the Sweeper Sri Munna Ram Lal Begi, under suspension who used to come much before Bank hours and go much after the Bank hours acquainted with the use of such keys and that he was having in possession of the keys of Main Gate of the Bank. It was stated that Munna Ram Lal Begi had took a house loan advance to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lakhs but the house constructed by him was valued much beyond the loan taken by him and also beyond the known source of his income and therefore, his complicity in such occurrence cannot be ignored. The informant had reason to believe that the occurrence was given effect to in furtherance of common intention by the petitioner Naurath Prasad Giri and another Munna Ram Lal Begi. On the basis of the written report Govindpur P.S. Case No. 70/04 was registered under Sections 406, 409/120B I.P.C. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegation against the petitioner is based upon speculation and no witness in course of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has implicated him. The petitioner was posted as the Senior Branch Manager in the Govindpur Branch of Allahabad Bank from 10.07.2001 to 6.9.2003 and after making over the charge of his office on 6.9.2003 to his successor he proceeded to Asansole Zonal Office where he was transferred and there was no complaint by his successor or any other authority about the shortage of any amount or any irregularity in the accounts as per the rule/ circular/ guidelines of the Bank. 4. Learned Counsel further contended that the sealed packet was opened after 1 1/2 years of the Transfer of the petitioner in his absence. As a matter of fact the petitioner has been made escape goat in the present case for the misdeeds committed by other persons. The petitioner was put under suspension on 14.2.04 contemplating Departmental Proceeding but it was revoked on 9.11.04 amongst the charges framed. The finding of the Enquiry Officer as contained in Annexure-3 indicates that Article-1 and Article 2 of the charges could not be proved which involve theft of Rs. The petitioner was put under suspension on 14.2.04 contemplating Departmental Proceeding but it was revoked on 9.11.04 amongst the charges framed. The finding of the Enquiry Officer as contained in Annexure-3 indicates that Article-1 and Article 2 of the charges could not be proved which involve theft of Rs. 10 lakhs except the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with integrity and his best judgment in so far as he failed to maintain the system and procedure in maintaining the safe keeping of the keys of the Branch. The charge containing Article 4 was partially proved against the petitioner since he failed to verify the use of funds after disbursing total loan amount to the Sweeper Shri Munna Ram Lal Begi and therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was reinstated after revoking his suspension order. Finally it has been submitted that when the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges of theft or misappropriation of money his criminal prosecution after taking cognizance under Section 406, 409, 120B Indian Penal Code is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. The Supreme Court of India in Bhajan Lals case reported in A.I.R. 1992 devised guidelines and observed: We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. Equally it is well settled in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar , The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceeding. 6. Equally it is well settled in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar , The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceeding. 6. In the present case though the articles of charges in the departmental proceedings could not be wholly proved and on the basis of which petitioner has been reinstated but at the same time none of the articles as framed against him was related to offence within the domain of Section 406/409/120B I.P.C. as alleged in the criminal prosecution. Hence there being no merit the present petition is dismissed.