AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.—In the present revisional application u/s 401/397 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding being G.R. case No. 81/08 arising out of Ketugram P.S. Case No. 12/08 dated 21.02.2008 u/s 403/409/420/468 I.P.C. now pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa.
The Petitioner contends that while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Mougram Block office under Ketugram Police Station the above First Information Report was lodged against him for misappropriation of Rs. 60,390/- which he has already deposited. There is no merit in the said FIR in which after due investigation charge sheet has been submitted against him on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the Learned Court below on 12.06.2009 which is bad in law. Under the circumstances the said proceeding including the order taking cognizance should be set aside. Learned Lawyer for the State, however, has opposed the move and contended that on the basis of FIR due investigation was made and since prima facie materials were forthcoming against this accused u/s 403/409/420/468 IPC, charge sheet has been submitted against him and the Learned Court below has rightly taken cognizance which is neither illegal nor liable to be set aside at this stage.
After careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of FIR and the relevant case diary, I find that the following points need be considered in this case:
a. Whether I.O. is justified in filing charge sheet against the accused and
b. Whether Court below is justified in taking cognizance.
It is alleged in the FIR that the present Petitioner received Rs. 450/-on 23.11.2006 from Anayara Bibi in his official capacity for the purpose of crediting the same to her S.B. account No. 1038323 but did not deposit the same. On 25.07.2007 he received Rs. 200/- from one Rajia Sultana for crediting the same to her R.D. Account No. 104105 but did not deposit the same. He also received Rs. 6625/- on 08.02.2007 being the yearly R.P.L.I. Premium from one Sk. Kalimuddin the holder of R.P.L.I. policy No. IR/WB/SB/BDN/05.06/13072 but interpolated the amount and reduced it to Rs. 625/- in the office copy of the receipt No. 17. He also made entry in the R.P.L.I. journal the deposit of Rs. 625/- on 08.02.2007 instead of Rs. 6625/- and wrote a fictitious name in place of the name of the actual policy holder without changing the policy number and credited only Rs. 625/- into Government Account on 08.02.2007 and thus misappropriated a sum of Rs. 6000/-. He also accepted as a public servant a sum of Rs. 1326/- on 08.09.2006 being monthly R.P.L.I. Premium for the period from January 2006 to August, 2006 from one Jamili Begam and made necessary entries in her P.R. Book with office seal, stamp and his signature and issued receipt No. 23 of Book No. 4363 in her favour in respect of provisional policy No. 7894 but he has not credited the amount into Government account on 08.09.2006 or thereafter.
He also received Rs. 615 on 27.08.2007 being monthly R.P.L.I. Premium from May, 2007 to July, 2007 from one Meghal Mullick holder of R.P.L.I. in respect of Policy No. R-WB-SB-EA-140309 and made necessary entries in the P.R. Book with his signature and office seal and issued receipt No. 4 of Book No. 120004 in favour of the account holder but he has not made entry of the transaction in his office R.P.L.I. journal and did not show that he has deposited the said amount in the books of accounts on 27.08.2007 or on any subsequent date. Similarly on 28.08.2007 he received Rs. 630/- from one Salu Bibi being the monthly premium from June, 2007 to August, 2007 in respect of R.P.L.I. Policy No. R-WB-SB-EA-140294 and made necessary entries in the P.R. Book with his signature and office seal. He also issued receipt No. 6 of Book No. 120004 against such receipt but he did not make any entry of the transaction in his office R.P.L.I. journal on 28.08.2007 and deposit the said amount to Government account on that date or on any subsequent date. Thus he has misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 9221/- only.
On receipt of such allegation Ketugram P.S. Case No. 12/08 dated 21.02.2008 was started and after completion of investigation chargesheet has been submitted and Learned Court below has taken cognizance of the alleged offence.
From the argument advanced by Learned lawyer for the Petitioner it appears that a general plea has been taken to the effect that at the relevant time his mental condition was not well and he has committed mistake in crediting the said government receipts which were voluntarily credited subsequently along with other demands. It is not a case of fraud but on account of personal grudge and enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. The Petitioner was also placed under out of duty in connection with the earlier criminal case instituted against him u/s 498A/326/120B I.P.C. which is a proof of such contention. In annexure P/7 the Petitioner has tried to show that his mother has deposited Rs. 5090/- in post office as claimed by the postal authorities so that he may be released on bail. My attention has also been drawn to another letter from Assistant Superintendent of post Katwa Sub-Division to the Sr. Superintendent of P.O.S., Burdwan Division dated 05.05.2008 in which it is stated that the accused has forgotten to deposit some money as his brain was not normal. He was suffering in belly-ache and unhappiness of family since 04.09.2007. After careful consideration of the matter I find that all the points raised before me relate to question of fact which cannot be decided at this stage. There is no illegality or irregularity in the matter of investigation of the alleged offence which has culminated into submission of charge sheet as a prima facie case was made out to the effect that the said amount though received by the Petitioner accused was not credited to the Government account in time or before FIR. The deposit made by him after lodging of FIR may be a mitigating circumstance as this was done after completion of the alleged offence disclosed in the FIR and this cannot be treated as infirmity in investigating this case. The revisional court cannot hold a contrary view after filing of the charge sheet and cognizance taken by Learned Trial Court is justified. The Petitioner will get ample opportunity to take such defence and agitate on the points so raised before me in course of trial. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revisional application which is accordingly dismissed. Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case as per law and to dispose of the same expeditiously.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the respective parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.