Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 361 (PAT)

Madheshwar Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-18

J.N.SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 7.5.2007 by which on remand the petition of the petitioner under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the Court below. 3. Earlier the petitioner had moved this Court for quashing of the order rejecting his prayer for discharge. This Court had found that the learned Court below had not examined the aspect of the matter as to whether the loanees on whose application the petitioner had made recommendations were fictitious persons or non-members of the society or not and therefore the matter was remitted back to the learned Court below to hear the petitioner, call for the records of the Co-operative Society, examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, learned Court below heard the matter again. Records of the Co-operative Society were called for which were not received by the Court below. However, on going through the materials collected during investigation, learned Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had recommended for grant of loan to the persons who were ineligible or fictitious persons. Therefore, on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, learned Court below came to the conclusion that prima facie case under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. 5. When the case was taken up on 31.10.2007. a report was called for from the Court below with regard to the stage of the case. Report has been received from which it transpires that the case is at trial stage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this context, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Bhardwaj v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1990 PLJR 470. In that case, this Court found that the petitioner of the case was only instrumental in introducing the account holder for opening of his account in the Bank of India. Thereafter, the money deposited in the account by the Provident Fund Office was withdrawn by the account holder. On the facts of the case, this Court found that the petitioner was not instrumental in any way in deposit of money in the account of the said account holder or its withdrawal therefrom. Thereafter, the money deposited in the account by the Provident Fund Office was withdrawn by the account holder. On the facts of the case, this Court found that the petitioner was not instrumental in any way in deposit of money in the account of the said account holder or its withdrawal therefrom. In the circumstances, in the light of the facts of that particular case, cognizance order and proceedings were quashed by this Court. 7. Facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, Co-operative Society had forwarded the list of loanees for grant of loan which the petitioner in the capacity of Inspector of Society was obliged to examine, make necessary inspection and enquiry before recommendation. Allegation against the petitioner is that he recommended the same without making proper enquiry and inspection pursuant to which fictitious persons and persons ineligible were granted loan. In the circumstances, the petitioner had some role to play in getting the loans disbursed to the said persons. 8. In that view of the matter, I find that this is not a case of quashing of order of prosecution at the threshold. The case is at the trial stage where petitioner shall be at liberty to take all his defence. 9. In the result, this application is dismissed.