Full Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, J.`
1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-12-.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in G.R. No. 3308 of 1996 by which the application filed by the petitioner for discharging him from trial has been rejected.
2. The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the Chief Manager B.I., Main Branch, Patna, stating therein that on 9-12-1995 one Alok Kumar Mishra, Holder of Saving Bank Account approached the Bank for grant of loan of a sum of Rs. 3.25 lacs against pledge of the Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs. 5 (five) lacs. The said applicant discharged the Kisan Vikas Patra for the value of Rs. 5 (five) lacs in favour of the bank and noting of lien were also found marked from the office of Post Master, G.P.O. Patna, on the face of each scrip. Before sanction of any loan to the applicant, the officer of the Bank preferred to get the genuineness of the Vikas Patra verified from the issuing post office and for said purpose several letters were sent to the issuing post office and also to the Post Master General, Bihar, but nothing was done from their behalf. However, in the meantime, when the bank took steps to verify the genuineness of the Kisan Vikas Patra, the applicant Alok Kumar Mishra is evading himself visiting the Bank for the reasons best known to him although his loan application and the said Kisan Vikas Patra were still in possession of the bank. The Branch Manager of the bank, therefore, reported the matter to the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and another accused and cognizance was taken. In course of investigation it transpires that one Shailender Kumar who was working in the office of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna, was an introducer of the said account holder, Alok Kumar Mishra and said Shailender Kumar during investigation stated that he was known to the petitioner who was an assistant in his office on saying of the petitioner Shailender Kumar became the identifier.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on the face of the allegation made in the written report of the Branch Manager and also from the evidence came in the case diary, no case against the petitioner is made out inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner was not introducer or identifier of the account holder. Learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming the entire allegation to be true, then no offence is made out as the bank was not cheated. Lastly the learned Counsel submitted that no offence will be made out against the petitioner because neither in the F.I.R. nor during the entire investigation there is any material to show that the petitioner helped the said account-holder-Alok Kumar Mishra in getting the bank account opened.
4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and also perused the case diary, a copy of which has been called for. Admittedly the case was registered against the petitioner and another accused person under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the case diary it transpires from the statement of Shailender Kumar that he became introducer and identifier of Alok Kumar Mishra on the request made by the petitioner and one co-accused. Learned Magistrate has rightly held that the petitioner should also be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and for deciding whether the petitioner has also participated in the conspiracy and he is also involved for the purpose of cheating is a question that can be decided only during trial. Learned Magistrate also considered the statement of one employee of the Co-operative department recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. that he became identifier only when request was made by the petitioner. Having regard to the evidence collected in the case diary, the learned Magistrate took the view that it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be discharged from the case. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.