Back
SHORT NOTE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Subhash Chand, J.
Kamini Mohan Mehra – Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Cr. Revision No.435 of 2023
Decided on 11.12.2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 409, 467 and 468 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 239 and 240 – Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Rejection of discharge petition – If from allegations made in F.I.R. and evidence collected during investigation, there are sufficient grounds to proceed, Court should decline to allow discharge application – While framing charge, Court has to take into consideration allegations made in F.I.R. and also evidence collected by I.O. during investigation – From allegations made in F.I.R. and also from evidence collected by I.O., it is prima facie made out that it was petitioner, the then Branch Manager of Bank who was instrumental in embezzlement of huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/- – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultimately committed by him – Impugned order passed by court below affirmed.
Held: It is the settled law that while framing charge, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. i.e., oral or documentary during the investigation. If from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation, there are sufficient ground to proceed, the Court should decline to allow the discharge application. If from the cumulative evidence i.e., oral and documentary collected during the investigation and the allegations made in the F.I.R., the Court is of the definite opinion that there is no ground to proceed against the trial, the application for the discharge may be allowed.
19. From the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also from the evidence collected by the I.O., it prima facie made out that it was the petitioner Kamini Mohan Mehra, the then Branch Manager of S.B.I. Murhu Branch, District Khunti who was instrumental in transfer of huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/- from the account of Mithila Sharan to the account of Sanjay Kumar Kundu for the purpose of purchasing the land from Sanjay Kumar Kundu and when this embezzlement was disclosed it was Kamini Mohan Mehra who himself deposited the whole of the amount in various installments and also through his messengers in the account of Mithila Sharan. As such while transferring the huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/- in the account of Mithila Sharan there was dishonest intention on the part of petitioner to embezzle the said amount.
Mere depositing the defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate the accused/petitioner from the charge of commission of offence which has been ultimately committed by him.
In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the cumulative evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation i.e., oral as well as documentary and the settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, there are sufficient grounds to proceed with trial against the accused. As such, the impugned order dated 17th January, 2023 passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application needs no interference.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned court below is hereby affirmed.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 17th January, 2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in Murhu P.S. Case No.85 of 2019, whereby the discharge petition under Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that the informant had given a written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that he was account holder of saving bank account no.31484484727 in Murhu Branch District Khunti from which the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was transferred unauthorizedly in the bank account of Sanjay Kumar Kundu s/o Late Manna Kasera Main Road, Murhu District Khunti bearing A/c No.32241683733. The said amount of Rs.35 lakhs was withdrawn by Sanjay Kumar Kundu in three installments i.e., Rs.15 lakhs on 27th February, 2019, Rs.13 lakhs on 28th February, 2019 and Rs.7 lakhs on 1st March, 2019 and ultimately on 2nd April, 2019 Sanjay Kumar Kundu has closed his bank account. The matter was disclosed on 26th September, 2019 when the account holder, namely, Mithila Sharan came to the State Bank of India, Murhu Branch for updating his passbook. He found that Rs.35 lakhs has been unauthorizedly transferred from his account and he informed to the Branch Manager on 27th September, 2019. Then the present Branch Manager, Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh contacted the then Branch Manager Kamini Mohan Mehra over her mobile phone, thereafter, Kamini Mohan Mehra came to the Branch on 30th September, 2019 and deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in the account. On 30th September, 2019 he also met Mithila Sharan and assured him that entire amount shall be deposited in his account within ten days. On 5th October, 2019, Sri Kamini Mohan Mehra apprised to the Branch Manager that one person is coming to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- in the said account on his behalf. Further on 10th October, 2019 Kamini Mohan Mehra again apprised to the Branch Manager that Rs.11,00,000/- shall be deposited in the said account. On 11th October, 2019 Rs.4,50,000/- were deposited. On 15th October, 2019 Sri Mehra said over the phone that Branch Manager, Hemant should go to Arun Saboo and ask him to collect Rs.50,000/- and deposit it in the account of Mithila Sharan. On 16th October, 2019 Sri Mehra came himself and stated that rest of the amount would be deposited. As such the whole amount was deposited in the said account. Hence, the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused Sanjay Kumar Kundu and Kamini Mohan Mehra which was registered as Murhu P.S. Case No.85 of 2019 for the offence under Section 406, 409, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C.
4. The re-statement of the informant Abhay Kumar Singh, Branch Manager is at paragraph 7 of the case-diary in which he reiterated the allegations made in the F.I.R.
5. In paragraph 9 of the case-diary, the statement of witness Amarjeet Ram was recorded who is cashier of S.B.I. Murhu Branch. He corroborated the allegations made in the F.I.R. and stated that on 27th February, 2019 Sanjay Kumar Kundu came to withdraw the amount of Rs.15 lakhs from his account at his counter. He asked the reason for withdrawal of so huge amount and he stated that said amount was the sale proceed of his land and same is needed to him for treatment as he was going to Vellore. He contacted the then Branch Manager Kamini Mohan Mehra on this very issue and the Branch Manager ordered to make the payment. Sanjay Kumar Kundu further withdrew the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- on 28th February, 2019 and on 1st March, 2019 of Rs.7,00,000/-. Ultimately he closed his account on 2nd April, 2019. He also stated that such a huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/- could not be transferred from the account of Mithila Sharan without his permission in his personal presence. Thereafter Kamini Mohan Mehra came to S.B.I. Branch and he deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/- Thereafter on behalf of Kamini Mohan Meh
Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultima....
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
At the stage of considering a discharge application, the court must assume the truth of the prosecution's evidence and determine if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has commi....
word "ground" according to Black's Law Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean bas....
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.
At the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider only the prosecution's materials, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
The court upheld the rejection of a discharge application, emphasizing that a prima facie case must exist without conducting a mini-trial, affirming the principles of evidence evaluation at the disch....
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
