R.N. Lal, J.

1. This petition is for quashing the criminal proceeding bearing C.R. No. 2448 of 1974/T.R. No. 574 of 1988 pending in the court of Shri Y.P. Bhagat, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted to face trial under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. This case relates to the alleged defalcation of money from the Provident Fund Account under various transactions in the Provident Fund Commissioners Office. The petitioner is a bank employee in the Bank of India, Frazer Read, Patna where (Sudhir Kumar Lahiri) had opened his account. It is said that some money drawn from the Provident Fund Account was deposited in the account of the Sudhir Chandra Lahiri who was only introduced by the petitioner and thereafter, money was withdrawn.

3. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that First Information Report was lodged in 1974 and the charge-sheet was submitted in this case in 1986. The cognizance was taken in 1986 and the charges have been framed in 1989, According to Mr. Chatterjee, the petitioner is neither the conspirator nor entered into any agreement with Lahiri in the defalcation of provident fund money. There is no iota of evidence on the record whatsoever to show that the petitioner had conspired with Lahiri or any body also or was in agreement with any of them for this defalcation. Hs relied on a decision in the case of Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration to show that prior concert or prior agreement between two parties have got to be established to prove conspiracy. No agreement or conspiracy has been mentioned by the police. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the Provident Fund Commissioner's Officer as cheques were issued from the P.F. Commissioner's Office. There is no nexus or link between the petitioner and the said office. He further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. to show that unless any nexus or any link is established between two persons that cannot be any conspiracy as defined under Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code. He has drawn this Court attention to the provisions of Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code which shows that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

4. In absence of any such agreement, link, nexus or conspiracy, the mischief of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted

5. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is the man, who simply introduced Lahiri in Bank of India in opening the account and the money was withdrawn from that account by the account-holder, As such, according to him it was not the petitioner, who hatched up the conspiracy in getting the money defalcated.

6. Admittedly, the Slate counsel has failed to bring any evidence to show that the petitioner was a conspirator or was in agreement with Lahiri or anybody else for any, any defalcation. He has simply introduced Lahiri to the Bank and a mere introduction cannot be said to be an agreement for causing defalcation. Rules laid down by the Supreme Court above clearly show that for such an act the mischief of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceeding in the court below as against the petitioner only is quashed.