Cril. Petition No. 20 of 2014. Case: Amrit Kar Vs The State of Manipur and Ors.. Manipur High Court

Case Number:Cril. Petition No. 20 of 2014
Party Name:Amrit Kar Vs The State of Manipur and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Athouba Kh. P.P. and Lenibala, Advocates
Judges:Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 258, 309, 311, 482; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226, 227; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 420, 468
Judgement Date:January 27, 2017
Court:Manipur High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.

  1. Entire proceeding of Criminal (P) 4 of 2011/219/2013, arising out of a case registered as FIR No. 525(7) of 1987 Imphal P.S. u/s. 468/420 of IPC is being sought to be quashed on the ground of denial of speedy justice to the petitioner infringing fundamental right as enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

    Before coming to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.

  2. It appears that the then Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Imphal Branch lodged a written report on 28.7.1987 alleging therein that an account payee draft bearing No. 204/87 having its number as 024681 dated 5.3.1987 issued from Aizwal Branch of Vijaya Bank for Rs. 86,400/- in favour of one Doungliana was presented on 23.3.1987 by the beneficiary for its credit in his SB Account No. 2522. On the same day, it was withdrawn by way of a loose cheque. Later one another such demand draft No. 1 of 1987 issued by the same Aizwal Branch in favour of the same beneficiary was presented. Since some discrepancy was found with respect to DD Number, the matter was referred to Aizwal Branch for confirmation as to whether the same had been issued by the said Branch. Upon verification it was informed by the Aizwal Branch that the aforesaid two drafts had never been issued from the said Branch. However, they asked for photocopies of the said demand drafts. Accordingly, it was sent. Upon verification, it was reported that their branch does not have any concern with those demand draft numbers. Upon getting such information when verification was made, it was found that the concerned Register and Vouchers of the whole day was missing. It could also be detected that in the year 1984 also such type of draft had been encashed by the said beneficiary. The voucher and the relevant register were also found missing. It could also be found that in the year, 1986 said beneficiary had also withdrawn a sum of Rs. 87,200 upon depositing a draft of the said amount. On such disclosure being made, the Branch Manager suspected conspiracy to a great deal and thereby submitted a written report upon which the case was registered.

  3. During investigation it was found that amounts drawn from A/C No. 2522 on deposit of 4(four) demand drafts bearing Nos. 985/85 worth Rs. 95,500/-, DD No. 3435/84 Dt. 18.9.1984 worth Rs. 86,200/-, DD No. 204 of 1987 dated 5.3.1987 worth Rs. 86,400/- and one DD of 1986 of Rs. 87,200/- produced by the beneficiary, accused Dongliana, before the Imphal Branch of the Vijaya Bank shown to have been issued by the Aizwal Branch of the said Bank, were all forged which had never been issued by the Aizwal Branch, rather the same were found to have been missing from Saikul Branch.

  4. So far as the petitioner, who happened to be the clerk is concerned, it was found against him that upon receiving of the advice of the DD No. 985 of 1985 Dt. 18.2.1985, the petitioner was asked to make entry after it was handed over to the petitioner which he did. Thereafter, the petitioner did not do anything. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the amount of the DD was credited in the account of the beneficiary which was withdrawn. It also transpired in course of investigation that one officer namely Biswanath Chhettry when received the advices of the DD along with pay in-slip, he personally verified the signature and obtained counter signature of the Branch Manager. Subsequently, the amount credited was withdrawn by virtue of loose cheques. It has been alleged against the petitioner that in spite of making endorsement of the receipt of the DD advice, said Register was never placed before the said Biswanath Chhetry for his signature. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted with respect to 4 DDs whose description are as follows:

  5. The charge sheet was submitted against the following persons:

    "1. Amrjit Kar(Petitioner)

  6. Dangpu Tonshing

  7. Meiginglung Rongmei

  8. Brinjanda Prasad

  9. K. Akum Kom"

  10. It would be very pertinent to state that the case was registered on 28.7.1987 whereas the charge sheet, as per the respondent, was submitted on 17.2.1993 which does not find support from the record of the case as record shows that the charge sheet was submitted only on 20.1.2011, which is also the case of the petitioner and on that day itself cognizance of the offence was taken. Upon cognizance being taken summons/warrant of arrest were issued against the accused persons. In response of which only two persons, namely Amrjit Kar(Petitioner) and also Dongpu Tonshing put appearance. The petitioner did appear in...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL