Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1843 (PAT)

Amod Kumar Katiyar v. State Of Bihar

2007-12-03

SADANAND MUKHERJEE

body2007
Judgment 1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Munger in connection with Muffasil (Bariarpur) P.S. Case No. 8 of 2001, G.R. No. 71 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 407 and 420 of the I.PC. and directed to issue summonses against the petitioner. 2. In the complaint case the petitioner has not been made an accused. According to the Complaint Case No. 618 of 2001, accused Pawan Kumar Singh was given Rs. 3600/- by the complainant and this amount was deposited in Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Imperial Forestly Corporation Limited vide Receipt No. 201562 dated 31.5.1997. When maturity period expired on 31.5.1998 accused Pawan Kumar was asked to give an amount of Rs. 4246/- to the complainant but the accused has not returned the money and further the complainant has deposited Rs. 8000/- in the name of his wife Smt. Soni Devi whose period also matured but Rs. 9440/- was not paid and further the complainant deposited Rs. 8000/- only on 9.5.1998 in the name of his wife on 20.1 1995 whose period has also matured but the amount was not returned although the period matured. 3. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., nor there is any allegation, whatsoever may be against the petitioner. It is stated that this petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of the aforesaid Pawan Kumar Singh. The present petitioner was provisionally selected as Marketing Manager in the aforesaid Company and took training. The petitioner was transferred to Bihar as Development Inspector in the year 1994. It is also submitted that when a Branch in the Munger district was opened, the petitioner was directed by the Company to shift his office at Patna and in the year 1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Acting Chief Development Executive Officer in the said Company. The petitioner joined his new assignment on 27.12.1995 but in the year 1996 on account of his ill-health, he resigned from the above stated assignment in September, 1996. Again he joined his earlier Company as A.G.M. and he was posted at Howrah and thereafter he was transferred to Lucknow. 4. The petitioner joined his new assignment on 27.12.1995 but in the year 1996 on account of his ill-health, he resigned from the above stated assignment in September, 1996. Again he joined his earlier Company as A.G.M. and he was posted at Howrah and thereafter he was transferred to Lucknow. 4. It is submitted with reference to case diary that at the relevant time the petitioner was not working at Munger nor any amount was entrusted to him by the informant. The entire money was given by the informant to the co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh. It is submitted that the said Pawan Kumar Singh alone was responsible. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner has been dragged in the instant case at the instance of the F.I.R. named accused, Pawan Kumar Singh. The petitioner was an employee of the said Company and the persons who are actually responsible for the said offence are the Board of Directors and not the petitioner. It is submitted with reference to case diary that not a single witness had stated about this petitioner. It is also indicated that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences and issued process against the petitioner considering paragraphs 4, 25, 28 and 30 of the case diary. 5. From perusal of the case diary it appears that paragraph-4 of the case diary contains the statement of the informant stating that the aforesaid amount has been taken by the Agent Pawan Kumar Singh and paragraph-25 of the case diary allegation has been levelled not against the petitioner but against the Company. In paragraph-28 of the case diary there is no allegation against the petitioner but against the Company. In paragraph-36 of the case diary this petitioner has been made accused on the basis of confession of the Agent, accused Pawan Kumar Singh and from his confession it appears that in some cases the Hon ble Supreme Court interfered and exonerated this petitioner. However, the details of such cases have not been given. In confession of coaccused Pawan Kumar Singh only vague allegation has been levelled against this petitioner that this petitioner being the Manager was responsible for defalcation of the said amount. It appears from perusal of the case diary that in course of investigation it was found that in this Company, i.e., Imperial Forestly Corporation Ltd. there had been fraudulent dealing with the customers. It appears from perusal of the case diary that in course of investigation it was found that in this Company, i.e., Imperial Forestly Corporation Ltd. there had been fraudulent dealing with the customers. The confession of coaccused Pawan Kumar Singh before the Police needs corroboration by other material particulars for fixing the culpability against the petitioner. In the entire case diary except the aforesaid vague allegation in the confession of co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh, there is no corroborated circumstances to connect the petitioner with the offence as alleged. On the other hand from the case diary it appears that this petitioner filed an affidavit which shows he worked in the Company until 23.12.1995 at Munger Branch as an employee and handed over the charge to one Pawan Kumar alongwith all the papers under his signatures on 23.12.1995 and thereafter he left the company for the reasons that he got selected as a Radio Station Officer in U.P. Police and he joined the training on 28.12.1995. The affidavit in the case diary further shows that he again came back in the aforesaid Imperial Forestly Corporation Ltd. and the Company again took him back as an employee in September, 1996 and thereafter he joined at Howrah (West Bengal). 6. From perusal of the complaint giving rise to Muffassil Bariarpur P.S. Case No. 08101 u/ss 406, 420, 409 IPC, it becomes clear that occurrence took place mainly in 1997-1998, the entire complaint shows that there was only one deposit in the year 1995 of Rs. 1000/-. However, the aforesaid deposit was made to the extent of Rs. 1000/- on 9.3.1995. Even so far as the period of this deposit is concerned, in course of Police investigation except confession of co-accused, no other material was found against the petitioner, and accordingly from perusal of the entire case diary and material on record, no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. 7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioner stands quashed. This application is accordingly allowed.