The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a finding of mens rea and the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice before ordering prosecution under section 340 of the Code, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and the larger interest of the administration of justice.

1. This criminal appeal u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been preferred by the appellants as they are aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari in M.J.C. No. 15/03 allowing the application preferred by respondent No.2 u/s 340 of the Code and thereby filing criminal complaint u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellants are officers of Bank of Baroda and respondent No.2 obtained loan from the Bank and the Bank filed recovery suit for a sum of Rs. 7,79,958.23/- against respondent NO.2 and others before the learned A.D.J. The suit was signed by appellant No. 1 as power of attorney holder of the Bank whereas appellant. 2 was the Branch Manager at the relevant time when the stamp paper on which the Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt (for brevity (L.A.D.) was purchased and appellant No. 3 was the Branch Manager at Dhamtari on the date the suit was filed. Respondent No.2 after service of notice filed an application of Annexure P/3 u/s 340 of the Code alleging therein that document No. 22 in two pages annexed with the plaint is pasted over a blank stamp paper which was purchased on 13.11.1997, however, the appellants have made certain interpolation to show that the same was purchased on 13.11.1994 and the form of LAD. executed on 16.05.1997 has been pasted over the above forged stamp and by this act the appellants have tried to bring the above suit within the period of limitation.

3. The learned A.D.J, registered the above application as M.J.C. No. 15/2003 and conducted preliminary enquiry and recorded statements of six witnesses including the statement of respondent No.2 and thereafter by the impugned order allowed the application and directed preparation of complaint U/S 340 of the Code for prosecution of the appellants u/s 420, 467,468 and 471/34 of the Code vide order of Annexure P/5. In compliance of the above order complaint of Ex. P/10 has been filed in the Court of C.J.M. Dhamtari. The above complaint is registered as criminal complaint case No. 111/2004 and charge u/s 420, 467,468,471/34 has been framed on 08.10.2004 by the learned CJ.M., Dhamtari.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that cash credit facility was given to respondent No.2 and others when they failed to perform their obligations as the account was not made regular despite repeated requests for the same, the Bank filed above civil suit and defendants in place of contesting the suit on merits, have initiated the above proceedings on the false pretext that one rupee stamp purchased on 13.11.1997 has been fabricated with a view to bring the suit within limitation. It is argued that admittedly the document over which the L.A.D. has been executed which is Ex. P/2 is duly signed by respondent No.2 and the date of document as shown is 16.05.1997 and respondent NO.2 has acknowledged by this document that he owes a sum ofRs. 3,31,954.23/- only as on 16.05.1997.

5. He further submits that the above document has been signed by the defendants, borrowers and guarantors and the same has been pasted over one rupee stamp and this stamp is also duly signed by all the defendants including respondent No.2. It is further argued that it is alleged that fabrication in the stamp paper has been done by the appellants and thereby 13 .11.1997 has been fabricated to show the purchase of stamp as 13.11.1994, with a view to bring the suit within limitation. It is submitted that if the intention of the Bank was to bring the suit within limitation, they would not have interpolated the document to show that the same was executed in the earlier date as no useful purpose would have been served by this endeavour. It is also argued that the learned A.D.J, without recording a finding that it was expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made in the alleged offence with respec