Kesab Ranjan Sur vs The State of West Bengal

M.K. Bhattacharjee, J.—By this revision the accused petitioner has challenged the proceeding being G. R.. No. 428 of 1976, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, arising out of Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26th February, 1976.

The brief background of the case is that the (then the Branch Manager of Madhyamgram Branch of the United Commercial Bank filed a complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, and the learned Magistrate in exercise of his power u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed the Officer-in-Charge, Barasat P. S., to investigate the case by treating the complaint as FIR and the Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26-2-76 was registered. In the complaint it was stated that on 1st August, 1972 a Savings Bank Account No. 2761/W was opened in the name of one Arun Saha at the Madhyamgram Branch and all the papers relating to the account of Arun Saha were filled in by one Samar Chakraborty, head clerk of that Branch of the aforesaid UCO Bank. The said account was opened. in Savings Bank Ledger No. 10 and that was filled up by the said Samar Chakarborty and at that time D. K. Pal, Accountant of that Branch, was in supervision of that matter and the said account was opened with the initial cash deposit of Rs. 1,001 /- and the relative pay-in-slip dated 1-8-72 was prepared by the petitioner but without any signature of the petitioner. The pass book was issued on the same date. Subsequently the entry of Rs. 1,001/-was changed into Rs. 7,001 /-. Such alteration was initialled by the Accountant D.K. Pal but in the supplementary the amount was correctly shown as Rs. 1,001/-. So the final balance in the account was shown as Rupees 7,001/- instead of correct balance of Rs. 1,001/-. The supplementary book was checked by the Accountant on 4-8-72 as issued by T. B. Das, a clerk of that Branch. Such withdrawal was posted in the ledger by the petitioner and passed by the Accountant and the payment was effected. On 8-8-72, another Rs. 1,000/- was withdrawn and the same process was followed and the signature was verified by N. C. Das, the then Acting Manager, and the same was passed for payment by the Accountant. On 14-8-72 there was another withdrawal of Rs. 4,500/-. The signature of the account holder was verified by the Accountant and he passed it for payment and he also checked the supplementary book and signed it. On 8-8-72 the account holder sought permission to withdraw Rs. 4,875/- by a letter and on 12-8-72 the same was posted on record of that Branch but actually payment was effected on 14-8-72 i.e. before the expiry of 10 days notice. Subsequently on enquiry it was revealed that Arun Saha was a fictitious person and the account was opened in a fictitious name. On the reverse side of the withdrawal slip there were two signatures of the account-holder and by fraudulent means a sum of Rs. 6,500/- was withdrawn though the initial deposit was Rupees 1.001/-. So the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 5,500/-.

According to the revisional application, the name of the present accused petitioner does not appear in the FIR and he was only a posting clerk during the period making the relevant posting in the ledger relating to the opening of the account and withdrawal of various amounts by withdrawal slips and in each case the same was verified and passed by the Accountant. Although the case was initiated on 2nd February, 1976, till 9th August, 1991, no charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioner.

Mr. Jahar Lal Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that in view of the order passed by this Court on 19th September, 1991, there was no further progress in this case before the trial Court. Mr. Roy submits that there is a long delay in this matter for which the accused petitioner suffers both mentally and physically and till 9th August, 1991, no charge-sheet was filed. For this long drawn proceeding, the petitioner not only suffered mentally and physically but also suffered financially and that agony and anxiety are always fighting into the core of the heart of the petitioner and he is oh, the tenterhooks of uncertainty hovering between anxiety and sigh and with that passing every night. The provision of the Criminal Procedure Code also en visages an early hearing so that the litigant should know the result of his case to be relieved of sufferings. That is also the dictum of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this has been amply stated by the Supreme Court in the case of A. R. Antulay, reported in, 1 SCC 225, corresponding to Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc., Even in a subsequent decision in the case of Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha and others, , the Supreme Court again reiterated that every effort should be made to conclude the trial starting from the date of complaint so that the accused may know of his fate in the case. In the instant case, the Court was moved and the police initiated the investigation on 26th February, 1976, and even in 1991 the matter could not see the light of the day. That is against the principle and/or dictum laid down in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has suffered so long for no fault of his own. In such circumstances, I find no reason to put a new lease of life to this matter.

Accordingly, the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 428 of 1976 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, arising out of Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26th February, 1976, are hereby quashed so far the petitioner is concerned. The revisional application is allowed. The accused petitioner is discharged from his bail bond.

Let the lower Court records in connection with Crl. Revision No. 1129 of 1991 be sent down immediately to the Court below.