Jharkhand High Court
Pea Sess Aer vs Unknown on 5 March, 2021
Vivek Srivastava, son of Shri Vidya Nand Prasad, village-Kibvaran Co fines, Ranchi, BO and PS-Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand iN THE HIGH COURT OF THARKHAND AT RANCASY Criminal Revision No.180 of 2015 Pea SESS AER evens i HLELAL SARL' F Versus 1 The State of Tharkhand 2 The Branch Manager, ICICT Be ank, Godda Branch, P.O and BS anc aes PHetriet-Gadda, har ihand CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUS STICE SHRE E CHANDR: ASHEKNAS Por the Pa dtioner > Mir. Purnenda Sharan, Advocate Sor dhe State : Ma. Nehala Sh rarmin, APP An RY SE Order No, 10/Dated: 8° March, 2021 | vet . oY ay iy The petitioner, posted as Cluster Branch Manager al 4 according to the prosecution, was found invelved in embes ot Rs.3,14,77,.000/ from ICICT Bank. In Godda (T) PS Case Now which was registered under sections 406, 409, 429, 807, AOS, « of the Indian Penal Code he was not made accused. He is ager eee day % APTA Ke? hy pes ian ica hari sReaP gt erry order dated G2.012015 by which his discharge petition section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking disc MY MSD RE REID cro wage Sa, L240 of 2013 was rejected. mn im the order dated 02.01.2015, the learned mo Magistrate, Godda has observed that in the internal enquiry K was Vivek Srivastava and Vijay Chaudhary had knowledge about p forged FIDRs still they did not take step in the matter rane was sent to Godda to manage the things. ee This criminal revision petition was filed on 2) was listed for hearing on 11.08.2015. On that day, the lower Court's rec pt amtiangnd £ax Sees tha Gruieh samrarne ye ey et nae edien ween TP ened were called for from the Court concerned by a co-ordinate Seno Court, Thereafler, this criminal revision petition was Rated on 18, U7O6.2018, 04.046 2016 and 21.04.2016, but on ane ground or the o mattes was mot heard finally. Gm 18.02.2021, when this criminal ve ARAN iY PUM OO. TOOUMOM@VOSTCOTTTEETON. S =
SS S S ~ EEUU ELLE LE LE EEE 3 3 SS S SS \ SS S \ .
petition was Usted before me on a request Mh ade on behalf af Mr P Sharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, hearing of tas 6 reyision Getition was deferred for 04.03.2021.
&. Even after availing repeated opportunities the Mank. filed lis counter-aflidavit.
wee >. Cm 19.08.2013, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal gave @ 4 writers the officer-in-charge, Godda PS stating that Ravi Sharma who was § Manager of (CICT Bank, Godda accompanied with Vishwa} eet and S "ed his offiee at Central Avenuc and asked him for some & VISite Sem his account so that Ravi Sharma could aghie promotion. Ravi Sharma gave him cheque st Brn ges Peay provided him four account numbers fos Rearod aseboodyer Oa tos Bra and Re GG transactions which was to be tree of charge. Hesvever, later or Os RAE shat Rs.3.S-4 lakhs were ch laren from him for the marth of June s Ard protest Ravi Sharma offered him to deposit Rs.S crores anc urcharge amount would be returned, Age epuny, the offer of Ravi S infermant depasiisd about Ro. crares and ask PRS Bed de promised h im that surcharge amount Ww ould be returned. To the s che informant, on O7.08.2013 be found that ail the money fram fhe four aecounts were Withdrawn and transferred to different accounts, Py CARY sation, Arun Kumar Singh who was posted as Branch M investiga ui yey Rank, made specific allegations against Ravi Sharma, Anupnia & who were Tha, Vishwaject, Chandan Kumar and Vikash buomar relevant time posted at ICICT Bank, Godda Branch. "The os referred io the confessional statement of Anupma Ral, Ravi S AGA ES Rishikesh Sanjiv who did not implicate fim in the entire opis chat he found one fake FOR in Deoghar Branch and the matier was % Lhe to Central Team (Legal/RUU) and he immediately sem FRM/Regional Head! Zonal Head. He claims that he had ne about various irregularities com rmiitted by Ravi Sharma and Rs a and he has infact lodged another First Information Report bean Bt &, Mis. Pumendu Sharan, the learned counsel i eeeey shoo eey swould subraié that lapse in discharge of duty weadd not incur s UM UyWQLV_ XK.' CGB <i" s--o"foMrr7r7rn>r'r?}YH#WW(HHH( UUM VE'"_LA--F--T hix<{["_>Fa>-->a>-->-->"'>/t#HrUr ?)?>?>#2>2"--"7"é 4 Fs > Fr" -->=>--a=>»F/"?>>F>H#?F"--7F?
tae Wability and, moreover, there is no maler ial establishing co peiiiioner in the crime, A reading of the First Information Report does not 3 3 x mvyoivement of the petitioner in preparation or issuance of fake FORs The 'formant made a specific allegation against R avi Sharma, Anupys Vishwaleet, Saroj Jha and Rishikesh Sanjiv and there is no allegal the petitioner. In course oft che internal enquiry, it was found that | administrative lapse at the end of the petitioner and one af the wi stated that the petitioner had prior knowledge about the ange:
racket operating | from: » Deoghar Branch oP CCl Bank. A co-aecused aise stated in his: ssional statement: that the petitioner was gavare oY the legal activities at Deoghar Branch but he did not take any enatter, Section 418 of the Indian. Penal Code provides that fraudulently or dishonestly imduces another to deliver any prope person, or deeeives him to consent that another person shall oreperty commits the offence of cheating. The Prosecu ease ig That ite aceused persons entered ito a eriminal conspiracy to ch and the Bank as well by preparation of false documents fc be US valuable Security . On criminal conspiracy, direct evidence is hare & this issue can" be deel ded conclusively donne ofthe tial administrative lapse 'coupled with knowles dge about irregularities may ts s :
ce colour of a criminal offence. From the materials on record, | fine myolvement of the petitioner in preparation of fake FDRs is n oy however, insafar as the offence under section 420 read will Indian Penal Code is concerned, in my opinion, a prima-facie ¢ sat, At this stage, the learned Magistrate was not required to ena materials collected during the investigation minutely and his own & x y t araiected by the patitioner cannot be a ground to hold that he mvolved in the crime. , i is well-settled that while the revisional Cou the factual matrix of the case, the revisional jurisdiction should exercised anly on a question of law. In SXETCIING section 397 read with section 4Q1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court would not go into the merits af the case to fine : é + i ei meni bPancer > .
Re and rs or.
+ £ ¥ whe?
Bet } ?.
* spot && fad :
@ evik ad not Atk as cbse Sp.
i 3 & 4 "y Ry ce B "
store, fa z ¢ I coasts OB o mm rz x i PGND SUSPICIO art fl cre g 3 % wa ' ad { & % af > pened o .~ "X No .
WEE @ nsmit "
é &e Yew ra, toes Shen, ms nt oa tow ™ ae pw ee Ms od x h Ota ox wn lt;
one SS ned eb f > i recencis ?
ord ef & a7 re ut 3 4 Wo. TSO ~ .2
au A 3 eaFie iG Ma aoe y x ated G2 x at har ofience. pe, d et la oY x anid TAR i al Revisor pow a2 ~ Ly oo ween, ed os it ax peed (Shree Chandr: 420 ree 4 er and, z charge:
orosecution evider ar 228 ie er ois methane atten tey See ry Nod ms so Pane ~*~ & order 2 cia apis vt 3, oor Lor CENT of Pe s nae, i i e afor a learned Chief Ju ord vt de 3 ont oN ye we 7 omy oe w% petition th un:
' ng of $ the Hon'ble Supreme C ide to th gs.
oP dechion oP } 7 HON, i Se 5 a Feces i ik # OF 1 WR VEPs te NRT ta 4 ¢ SARL Chat « i the Bed ge nai an 4 > sent e under s¢ ty 4, tee ike "a th the f i mip .
x + « y sever, Crm FRE s yffene Let a copy of th Penn new Sad ie ee wee to ™ ied ere, the ' x a The Hov + ons 406, 409, 467, 468, Pa ¥ o 2 AQIS 3 isagres el ut y MA i NH.
le ou & 4 nek Ag offen es lee vey YY