Back
1983 Supreme(Pat) 252
PATNA HIGH COURT
Abhiram Singh, J.
M.L.Biswas And Co.And Anr.
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2321 of 1982 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 21, 1983
The High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in a proper case to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS - FACTS CONSTITUTING OFFENCE - COGNIZANCE - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, partners of a firm, were accused of drawing excess amounts from their Demand Draft Purchase System account with the State Bank of India, Daltonganj, in collusion with bank employees. A first information report was filed against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings against them, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature and that the criminal prosecution was an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the facts alleged in the first information report and the charge-sheet constituted a prima facie case against the petitioners under the sections under which cognizance had been taken against them. The court found that the transactions between the petitioners and the bank were not normal, that there were allegations of forgery of documents, and that the petitioners had colluded with bank employees to transgress the Demand Draft Purchase limit. The court also held that the learned Special Judge had not passed the order for taking cognizance against the petitioners without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the facts alleged in the first information report and the charge-sheet constituted an offence against the petitioners? 2. Whether the learned Special Judge had passed the order for taking cognizance against the petitioners without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the facts alleged in the first information report and the charge-sheet constituted a prima facie case against the petitioners under the sections under which cognizance had been taken against them. The court found that the transactions between the petitioners and the bank were not normal, that there were allegations of forgery of documents, and that the petitioners had colluded with bank employees to transgress the Demand Draft Purchase limit. 2. The court held that the learned Special Judge had not passed the order for taking cognizance against the petitioners without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding no merit in the case.
Abhiram Singh, J.
1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for quashing the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners in Special Case No. 3/80 pending in the court of the Special Judge (C.B.I.) South Bihar, Patna.
2. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of petitioner No. 1 which is a firm having business transaction with the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch from the very beginning of the opening of the branch in the year 1957. It is said that the petitioners bill transaction and D.D. purchase transaction with the said bank varied from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 8 crores per year. The petitioners had Cheque facilities with the State Bank of India, Daltonganj with certain limits which is known as Demand Draft Purchase System. The petitioners used to issue self-cheques and also in favour of other persons at Calcutta Banks presented at Daltonganj and used to collect the money on the basis of the assumption of deposits of sale-proceeds at Calcutta banks. On 25.1.1980, a first information report was filed under Sections 120B, 409, 418, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(2) r/w and 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners and also against other officers of the State Bank of India at Daltonganj. The allegations against the petitioners are that they drew sufficient amount in excess of the Demand Draft Purchase limits allowed by the Bank. It is said that Sri T.K. Bagchi and Sri Arjun Prasad while functioning as Branch Manager and Manager respectively of State Bank of India, Daltonganj-branch, during the period of October, 1978 to March, 1979, entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s M.L. Biswas and Company and other partners Ranjit Kumar Biswas and B.N. Biswas to cheat the State Bank of India Daltonganj branch and to commit criminal misconduct abusing their official position and to obtain undue pecuniary benefits for themselves and others. It is further said that in furtherance of the said Criminal conspiracy, 109 cheques for Rs. 57,24,000, (Fifty-seven lakhs and twenty four thousand) issued by M/s. M.L. Biswas and company and Sri Ranjit Kumar Biswas on their accounts standing at Mercantile Bank and United Bank of India at Calcutta were allowed to be discounted at State Bank of India, Daltonganj by Sri T.K. Bagchi and Sri Arjun Prasad when there was insignificant balance to their credits with the drawee banks. With the result that the cheques were dishonoured and returned unpaid and the amounts could not be recovered from the discounters. M/s. M.L. Biswas and Company had been allowed Demand Draft limit up to Rs. 2,50,000. (Two lakhs and fifty thousand). Sri R.K. Biswas up to Rs. 2,00,000 and Sri B.N. Biswas up to Rs. 1,00,000. (One lakh). The Bank employees are said to have accommodated the petitioners by allowing them to draw more amount than the limits imposed. It is said that the forged bank-payment advices purported to have been issued by State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch were introduced into the Bank Records of State Bank of India, Daltonganj branch and the liabilities of the discounters were marked off dishonestly and with intent to facilitates further accommodation to the petitioners.
3. On 19.3.1982, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners as well as against the employees of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj branch. The learned court of special Judge (C.B.I.) South Bihar took cognizance against the petitioners and other employees of the State Bank of India on 20.3.1982 under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(2) r/w and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that basically the di
