Punjab and Sind Bank vs Sarabjit Singh

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd March, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are as follows:

The respondent (original petitioner in the writ petition) was an employee with the appellant Bank (original respondent No. 1 in the writ petition). An FIR was lodged by the appellant Bank alleging irregularities and commission of offence by the respondent. At the Bank''s behest, the respondent deposited with the Bank a total amount of Rs. 3,17,256.82 on different dates between 6th February, 1985 and 4th March, 1985. These sums were kept under lien of the Bank pending criminal proceedings. On 9th March, 2007, the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court. The judgment and acquittal recorded by the court was not carried in appeal and the same, therefore, become final.

The respondent was constrained to file the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen calling upon Bank to release the amount deposited by the respondent. During the pendency of the case, the appellant Bank paid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,66,797.02. It was contended by the respondent that the amount awarded over and above the principal amount deposited with the Bank, if appropriated towards interest, worked out to approximately 3.25% per annum, which is far below the market rate. As per the respondent, he was entitled to normal market rate of interest which the appellant Bank would have paid to all other similarly placed individuals who had maintained accounts and kept sums deposited with it. On the other hand, it was the contention of the appellant Bank that the amounts were kept in the respondent''s savings bank account and, therefore, whatever sums were earned were duly credited and it had no obligation to pay market rate or any higher rate of interest.

The learned Single Judge has rightly held that at the stage when the respondent was required to deposit the amount, there was no binding obligation upon him to do so. The learned Single Judge correctly took note of the fact that the appellant Bank having asked the respondent to deposit various sums of amounts, pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, ought to have taken steps to ensure that they were maintained in interest bearing deposits so that in the event of a favourable decision, the respondent would have enjoyed the benefit of not only the principal amount but the interest accruals that would have naturally arisen. The fact that the Bank chose not to take such steps, which would have ultimately resulted in full restitution, was not a justification for it to deny its liability. The learned Single Judge thus, in our view, correctly held that the Bank was liable to pay higher rate of interest. The learned Single Judge has correctly awarded the different/higher rates of interest for the period 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1995 and for the period 1st April, 1995 to 6th November, 2008. The sums of interest have been directed to be paid after adjusting the interest component already paid to the respondent on 6th November, 2008.

We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The same is just, equitable and in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appellant Bank cannot hold on to the respondent''s money for such a long period of time without taking any steps to ensure that the amount was maintained in an interest bearing deposit. The stand of the appellant Bank is completely unreasonable and unfair. Further there is complete lack of prudence in the actions of the appellant Bank.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove. C.M. No. 6689/2009 stand disposed of as well.