Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 546 (JK)

S. P. Singh v. State & anr

2011-10-18

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2011
JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge 1. Quashment of the case registered as FIR No.65/2011 Police Station, Leh, is sought. 2. For appreciating controversy in its right perspective, it shall be quite relevant to precisely notice as to what led to the registration of the case: (a) 237 Engineering Regiment of the Indian Army at Leh is maintaining Account No.10351101674 at State Bank of India Branch Leh. The said Regiment requested for transfer of an amount of Rs.96,93,000 (rupees ninety six lacs and ninety three thousand only) to the account of M/S Sai Baba Builders and Consultants Pvt. Ltd (in short SBBCPL) maintained under No.482100210001010 with Punjab National Bank, New Delhi House Bara Khamba Road Branch. While remitting the amount, the respondent banker by mistake added figure #0# at the end of the amount of Rs. 96,93,000/, as a result thereof, instead of Rs. 96,93,000/, Rs.9, 69,30,000 (rupees nine crores sixty-nine lacs and thirty thousand) were remitted in the bank account of the petitioner company at Delhi, therefore, Rs.8, 72,37,000 (eight corer seventy two lacs and thirty seven thousand) were transferred in excess. (b) The said mistake was noticed on 31st of March, 2011. Bank vide letter dated 31.3.2011 followed by reminder on 6.4.2011 informed the company and also remained in touch with the petitioner S. P. Singh and asked for refund of the excess amount. In consequence thereof, on 19.4.2011 the company deposited back Rs.1,00,000,00/ (rupees one crore), on 21.4.2011 Rs.50,000,00 (rupees fifty lacs) and on 23.4.2011 Rs.25,000,00 (rupees twenty five lacs). It is only thereafter on 26.4.2011 Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Leh lodged the report, based on which case was registered as Crime No.65/2011 for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 RPC. 3. By the instant petition, it is projected that the petitioner or M/S Sai Baba Company had neither misrepresented nor was involved in persuading the bank officials to remit the amount but the request for remittance of the amount from the account of 237 Engineering Regiment was made by the same Regiment and then bank officials while remitting the amount, on their own showing, had committed a mistake by adding zero #0# to the amount making it 9, 69, 30,000 (nine crores sixty nine lacs and thirty thousand). 4. 4. In the report lodged the bank of its own has admitted that the amount was remitted by mistake, same was detected on 31st of March, 2011 and it is added that on noticing the mistake the company was asked to refund the amount. 5. On 24.8.2011 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed an affidavit along with a statement dated June 13, 2011, wherein it is clearly shown that the entire excess amount of Rs.8,72,37,000(rupees eight crore seventy-two lac and thirty-seven thousand) has been remitted back into the account No.10351101674 of 237 Engineering Regiment maintained with State Bank of India TCA, Leh and request has been made to the Bank Manager to withdraw the case as lodged against the company. 6. The remittance of the amount is admitted. Now sole question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner or the company has committed any offence. It appears that the ingredients of Section 420 as well as that of Section 406 RPC are not satisfied. It further appears that there was no role of the company or the petitioner in remitting the amount into the account of the company. It is the bank which has committed the mistake, the moment it has been noticed and brought to the notice of the company, the company has started remitting the amount back and by now entire excess amount has been returned in the account of 237 Engineering Regiment. 7. The company, as it appears, has not motivated nor persuaded or misrepresented nor had any role in remitting the amount and admittedly due to mistake of the bank, excess amount has been remitted and the moment it has been brought to the notice of the company, company has remitted the amount, therefore, it appears that there was no criminal intent nor bonafides can be doubted when on gaining knowledge of excess amount into their account, the company has refunded the amount. 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the excess amount has remained in the account of the company, the interest which must have accrued thereon shall also be refunded by the company. It is the duty of the company that whatever shall be interest chargeable on the excess amount to pay the same as shall be permissible under rules. Same can be worked out while having recourse to other available remedies. 9. It is the duty of the company that whatever shall be interest chargeable on the excess amount to pay the same as shall be permissible under rules. Same can be worked out while having recourse to other available remedies. 9. In light of aforesaid observations, the investigating officer of the case registered as Crime No.65/2011 P/S Leh shall conclude the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner for purposes of concluding investigation, he shall be released on furnishing bail to the tune of Rs.20,000/ and personal bond of like amount to the satisfaction of investigating officer. 10. Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of.