Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Lalan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : The batch of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.01.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Telco P.S Case No. 168/2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 1426/2001, arising out of Complaint Case No. 734/2001, whereby the cognizance of the offences under Sections 403/ 406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 461/ 506/ 120-B of I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners. 2. A complaint case being C-1 Case No. 734 of 2001 was instituted by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 alleging that M/s Niranjan Enterprises was having an agency for giving financial assistance to the customers by arranging consumer loan from several Banks. The proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises (accused no. 1) with his agent (accused no. 2) induced the complainant for purchasing Thomson Colour T.V set on easy installments through Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Golmuri Branch (accused no. 3) on the condition that the opposite party no. 2 would to deposit his LIC policy as surety against the sanction of the consumer loan. The complainant thereafter deposited three LIC policies with M/s Niranjan Enterprises and also signed some blank papers and forms. The proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises and his agent collected the monthly installment from September 2000 to April 2001, however, from May 2001, they did not collect the monthly installments and when the complainant went to the office of the accused nos. 1 and 2, the same was found closed. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Bank where he was told by the Branch Manager that an amount of Rs.44,770/- was due against him towards the loan taken. However, the Branch Manager refused to give him the loan details, rather threatened him to pay the entire amount. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on receiving the complaint, referred the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to Telco Police Station to register an FIR and thereafter, Telco P.S Case No. 168/2001 was registered. The police investigated the case and chargesheet was submitted against Lalan Sharma (the petitioner of Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2007-the Managing Director of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chaibasa), Chet Narayan Ohdar (the petitioner of Cr.M.P No. 2269 of 2014-the Manager Accounts of the Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chaibasa) and Ramavtar Verma (the petitioner of Cr.M.P No. 975 of 2008-the Sr. Manager, Personnel and Administration of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chaibasa) and other accused persons. 4. On receipt of the chargesheet, the cognizance was taken by the court below for the offences under Sections 403/ 406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 461/ 506/ 120-B of I.P.C. against the petitioners and other accused persons. Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2007 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Lalan Sharma submits that the entire allegation has been levelled against Ram Niranjan Singh – Proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises, Sanjib Panda – agent and employee of M/s Niranjan Enterprises and Akhtar Hussain – Branch Manager of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank, Golmuri, Jamshedpur. The procedure for granting loan to the consumers in the said Bank was that the Branch Manager used to mortgage LIC Policies or any other Saving Certificates to the tune of loan amount and the Bank used to give loan to the consumers for that amount and before disbursement of loan, the Branch Manager used to forward the LIC policies to the concerned office for verification and after receiving the verification report from the LIC, the Branch Manager used to forward it to the higher officials i.e., the office of the Managing Director of the Bank for sanction and thereafter, the same used to be checked by the office of Managing Director and used to be forwarded to the Administrator – the District Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum. Thus, the Administrator i.e., the DDC, West Singhbhum used to sanction the loan. The role of the petitioner was only to forward the names of the prospective loanee to the sanctioning authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner having found certain irregularities committed by the Branch Manager of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank, Golmuri recommended for taking action against him and thereafter, the departmental inquiry was held and a punishment of reduction of rank was passed against him. It is further submitted that the court below took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner without applying his judicial mind as on the perusal of case diary as well as the chargesheet, it will transpire that the police has neither collected any evidence against the petitioner nor established his complicity in the alleged offence. Cr.M.P No. 2269 of 2014 6. Cr.M.P No. 2269 of 2014 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Chet Narayan Ohdar submits that in course of investigation, it has only come against the petitioner that he and the Manager Development of the Bank namely, Chandeshwar Rai processed the proposal made by the Branch Manager which was duly approved by the Managing Director and the then Administrator-cum-DDC, West Singhbhum. On the one hand, final form was submitted in favour of the DDC-cum-Administrator, West Singhbhum due to lack of evidence, whereas on the other hand, the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner without any material against him. Cr.M.P No. 975 of 2008 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Ramavtar Verma submits that earlier there was a policy decision of the Bank to provide consumer loan on easy installments as against the fixed deposit certificates and on pledging of LIC policies etc. at the Branch level itself, but when Lalan Sharma, joined as the Managing Director in the year 2000, he adopted a new procedure of directly giving such loan from the Headquarter itself in spite of protest raised by the present petitioner on 20.06.2000, who at the relevant time was posted and working as Sr. Manager, Personnel & Administration. Thereafter, he was completely eliminated from the said business of the Bank and as such, the question of making any endorsement or recommendation for grant of loan does not arise. After elimination of the present petitioner, the then Managing Director authorized the Manager Accounts & Manager Development for the said business of the Bank in place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no material has been collected during the investigation, rather the petitioner has been falsely implicated treating the signature of Sri C.N Ohdar as his signature. It is also submitted that the facts collected at paragraph 111 to 125 of the case diary would suggest that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in place of Sri C.N Ohdar. As per the complaint turned FIR also, no case is made out against the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the facts collected at paragraph 111 to 125 of the case diary would suggest that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in place of Sri C.N Ohdar. As per the complaint turned FIR also, no case is made out against the present petitioner. It would be evident that the proposals for sanction of loan were made by the then Branch Manager of Golmuri Branch, which were processed by the Manager Account namely, Sri C.N. Ohdar and Manager Development Sri Chandeshwar Rai which were duly approved by the Manager Development and the then Administrator-cum-DDC, West Singhbhum namely, Dhirendra Mishra sanctioned the same, but surprisingly the DDC has not been sent up for the trial on the opinion rendered by the Public Prosecutor, Chaibasa. On the basis of the facts collected at paragraph 121 of the case diary, the filing of the chargesheet against the petitioner is itself illegal. The petitioner was neither the recommending authority nor sanctioning authority of the loan in question as he was completely alienated from the said business of the Bank by the then Manager Development after the protest raised by him. The Branch Manager, Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Golmuri Branch, vide letter no. 317 dated 21.12.2001 informed the Police Inspector, Telco P.S., Telco after thorough verification of relevant records of the Bank that the petitioner has not signed in the loan sanction documents of opposite party no. 2 and the signatures in question over the sanction papers are actually of Sri C.N Ohdar along with other officials. In the said reply letter, he furnished the names of all the officials who were related to the work in question as mentioned in paragraph 121 of the case diary. 8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the complaint prima facie discloses the alleged offences against the petitioners and as such at this stage, the present criminal proceeding need not be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners may be agitated before the court below at an appropriate stage. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner-Lalan Sharma was made accused in the complaint itself, however, the petitioners-Chet Narayan Ohdar and Ramavtar Verma have been made accused on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police after investigation. All the petitioners are contending that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 10. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the case diary available in the record of Cr.M.P No. 2269 of 2014. 11. In para 10 of the case diary, the statement of the complainant has been recorded, wherein he has supported the allegations levelled against Ram Niranjan Singh – Proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises, Sanjib Panda – agent and employee of M/s Niranjan Enterprises and Akhtar Hussain – Branch Manager of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank, Golmuri, Jamshedpur. He has stated that he had applied for loan by depositing three LIC policies and he was released Rs. 14000/- however, on inquiry, it was found that the petitioners along with others, by hatching conspiracy had shown the loan amount of Rs. 44,770/- upon the complainant against six LIC policies. In para 27 of the case diary, the statement of witness Ram Chandra Thakur has been recorded who has stated that the proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises used to provide loan to the persons on the surety of LIC policy and on that pretext, he committed forgery against several persons in connivance with the Bank officers of Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank, Golmuri. He has further stated that the Bank officers also used to come to the office of M/s Niranjan Enterprises. Ram Niranjan Singh, the Proprietor of M/s Niranjan Enterprises has disclosed the name of the bank employees as Lalan Sharma, Akhtar Hussain, Ramavtar Verma, Chandeshwar Rai and Arun Kumar. In para 28, the statement of Nageshwar Thakur has been recorded. He has stated that M/s Niranjan Enterprises by making forgery against LIC policy holders took out money from the Cooperative Bank. He has also stated that Ram Niranjan Singh had told him that Manager, Clerk, Administrative Manager, Development Manager and Managing Director of Cooperative Bank were helping while taking loan. In para 37, the statement of witness Sant Kumar has been recorded who was the Assistant of the Bank. He has also stated that Ram Niranjan Singh had told him that Manager, Clerk, Administrative Manager, Development Manager and Managing Director of Cooperative Bank were helping while taking loan. In para 37, the statement of witness Sant Kumar has been recorded who was the Assistant of the Bank. He has stated that on the basis of the application of the LIC policy holders and on the basis of the recommendation of the Branch Manager, Administrative Manager, Development Manager and finally the Managing Director, the then Administrator who happened to be the Deputy Development Commissioner used to sanction loan. It also appears from the case diary that the loan amount was directly credited in the account of M/s Niranjan Enterprises. In para 40 of the case diary, the letter of recommendation for sanctioning loan has been reproduced and has been mentioned that the letter for sanction of loan was written by the Branch Manager-Akhtar Hussain and Assistant-Arun Kumar which was further recommended by Ramawtar Verma and Chandeshwar Rai. However, subsequently in reply of Branch Manager to the Police Inspector, Telco P.S., Telco, it was found that on the loan application, the signatures of Arun Kumar- Assistant, Md. Akhtar Hussain- Branch Manager, Chetnarayan Ohdar- Manager Account, Chandeshwar Rai- Manager Development, Lalan Sharma- Managing Director and Dhirendra Mishra- Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum-cum-Administrator were done. On perusal of para 40 and 41 of the case diary, it appears that instead of transferring the loan amount to the account of the policy holder, the same was transferred to the account of M/s Niranjan Enterprises. In para 59 of the Case Diary, the direction given by the Dy.S.P in the supervision report has been recorded according to which, when the application for loan was given to the local bank staff, the same was sent to the Chaibasa Headquarter, whereupon the Managing Director, Administrative Manager and Development Manager made inquiry and after recommendation, the loan was finally sanctioned by the Administrator and thereafter, the Branch Manager distributed the loan. Accordingly, the allegations levelled against the accused persons have been found true. 12. In view of the aforesaid statement recorded in the case diary, there appears prima facie involvement of the Managing Director-Lalan Sharma and C.N Ohdar-the Manager Accountant who had recommended for sanction of loan in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and other loanees. Accordingly, the allegations levelled against the accused persons have been found true. 12. In view of the aforesaid statement recorded in the case diary, there appears prima facie involvement of the Managing Director-Lalan Sharma and C.N Ohdar-the Manager Accountant who had recommended for sanction of loan in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and other loanees. So far as the involvement of the petitioner-Ramavtar Verma is concerned, who was the Sr. Manager, Personnel and Administration in the Head Office of the Bank situated at Chaibasa, though it was found that his signature was not there in the loan application of the loanee, yet in the statement of Ram Chandra Thakur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it has been specifically stated that some bank employees used to visit to the office of M/s Niranjan Enterprises. Moreover, Ram Niranjan Singh also disclosed before him that Ramavtar Verma also used to visit in his office. Be that as it may. Since the contention raised on behalf of petitioner – Ramavtar Verma is purely factual in nature, the same would be considered by the court below at an appropriate stage. 13. The police after finding prima facie involvement of the petitioners, submitted chargesheet against them and the court below after taking into consideration the material on record took cognizance of the offences under Sections 403/406/409/420/467/468/461/ 506/120-B of I.P.C. 14. As such, the present petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature only confined to adjudicate the present petitions and the court below will not be prejudiced by the same in any manner in conducting the proceeding of Telco P.S. Case No. 168 of 2001.