Amarjit Singh Grewal vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition filed by Amarjit Singh Grewal (hereinafter described as ''the petitioner'') is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala dated 8.8.1994. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Special Judge directed the charge to be framed against the petitioner and for him to be tried.

The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that petitioner opened a saving bank account No. 8472 in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Nabha on 25.4.1986. He was introduced by G.S. Sidhu. There was a credit balance of Rs. 1,23,000/ in the said account on 29.5.1986. The petitioner is alleged to have conspired with G.S. Sidhu who sanctioned six crop loans of Rs. 25,000/ each in the name of the petitioner, his family members and the employees. The loan applications were passed by Shri G.S. Sidhu and amount of Rs. 1 lac was credited in his account No. 8472 and the amount of Rs. 50,000/ was credited to the saving bank account No. 8573 which was opened on 29.5.1986 in the name of Capt. Rattan Singh. Thereafter two drafts were issued on 29.5.1986 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ and Rs. 1 lac from two accounts favouring Gurdial Singh at Chandigarh payable at Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17. The amounts of the drafts were utilized by the petitioner for the purchase of a house at Chandigarh. It is alleged that petitioner was not engaged in agricultural trade but was running a private school. In connivance with G.S. Sidhu, he obtained six crop loans for Rs. 1,50,000/ and utilized the same for the purchase of immovable property. It is also alleged that petitioner submitted two cheques for Rs. 51,000/ and Rs. 50,000/ drawn at Grindlays Bank, Darjeeling. The same were taken by Shri G.S. Sidhu. The amount was credited in the account of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,08,000/. It was passed through Shri G.S. Sidhu. The two cheques were sent for payment to Grindlays Bank, Darjeeling. They were received back as unpaid as there was no amount in the account of the petitioner. G.S. Sidhu did not take any action to realise the amount from the petitioner. In this process, it is contended that petitioner alongwith G.S. Sidhu defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs. one lac in criminal conspiracy with each other.

The learned trial court on appraisal of the material held that a prima facie case was drawn. Accordingly, he framed charges against the petitioner and others. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was the Principal of Public School, Nabha. He decided to sell his house at Chandigarh and to purchase a new house in the same city. The petitioner sold his house for about Rs. 4 lacs. The cost of the new house was about Rs. 5.5 lacs. In order to make up the deficiency, the petitioner wanted to avail of the loan facility. The daughter of Shri G.S. Sidhu was a student of Punjab Public School, Nabha. Shri G.S. Sidhu was the Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Nabha. Shri Sidhu informed the petitioner that he could sanction loans upto Rs. 1.5 lacs by giving six loans of Rs. 25,000/ each in different names. The petitioner was handed over six blank printed forms by the Manager for signatures. The petitioner signed the same and got five forms signed from his family members and relatives. They were handed over to Shri Sidhu. A joint account was opened by the petitioner in the name of his father and himself. Rs. 4.5 lacs were deposited. On 21.5.1986 petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of a new house at Chandigarh. On 29.5.1986 drafts amounting to Rs. 3.5 lacs were given as payment towards purchase of the new house. On the same day a sum Rs. 1.5 lacs from the loan amount was received and deposited. The petitioner repaid the loan and has cleared the same. In this process it is claimed that no case is drawn against the petitioner.

At this stage, the sole question for consideration is as to if a charge has to be framed against the petitioner or not. As mentioned above, the learned trial court felt that a prima facie case was drawn against the petitioner. Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplate situations as to when the accused has to be discharged or the charge has to be framed. The provisions read :

"239. When accused shall be discharged If, upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

....

Framing of charge (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

It is obvious from perusal of the aforesaid that at the stage when it is to be considered if charged is to be framed or not, the court has simply to see if on basis of the evidence collected, the charge is groundless or not. In the event if it is groundless, the accused can be discharged. Otherwise, if there is ground to presume that accused has committed an offence, the charge can well be framed. Reference in this regard can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018. Herein the Supreme Court was concerned with the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provisions are little different from Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therein the Court observed :

"It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial".

The expression "ground for presuming" means the situation that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of the witness. It does not mean sufficient ground for purposes of conviction. The test is whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding. Even though the person may have a defence but the same has to be left to be decided by an appropriate forum.

In the present case in hand, it has been found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Sequence of events and the facts also indicate to the same effect. It cannot be held that the charge was groundless. What the petitioner alleges is basically his defence. It has to be determined by the appropriate Court. But there is no ground to conclude and hold that the charge was groundless or, therefore, requires setting aside of the impugned order.

For these reasons, the petition being without merit fails and is dismissed.