Vide the aforesaid order, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) for quashing of the orders dated 4 July, 2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.306 of 2017 and the order dated 29 August, 2017 1 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, was disposed of by the impugned order.
He stated that the cheating has been done in connivance with the employees of the bank and the Post Office.
The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 4 July, 2017 allowed the Revision Petition and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
In the aforesaid order, no reasons were assigned except stating that for the reasons stating by the Sessions Judge in his order by which the matter was remitted back for consideration afresh, the application is allowed and the present appellant, Accountant S.D.Sharma, Bank Manager M.L.Verma and the then Post Master of Gonda Post Office were directed to be summoned.
He merely referred to the order passed by the Sessions Judge 5 challenging an earlier order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 6 May, 2017.
When the complainant requested for a copy of the statement of his account with the bank, statement supplied was either 6 illegible or there was mis-printing and as a result of which the complainant could not make out as to what transactions had been done from his account. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross- examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity.
The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so 8 warrant and the crucial test as notice above has to be applied is one which is more that prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction….” If the case in hand is examined on the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in our opinion, no case is made out against the appellant at this stage for his summoning as an additional accused merely because he once had supplied a copy of the statement of account to the complainant which was either dim or mis-printed.
Based on this material, opinion cannot be formed that he was in connivance with the accused who allegedly indulged in cheating the complainant by fraudulent withdrawal from his account.
Case Title: MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 244)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000738-000738 / 2023
