Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.Narain Singh and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. For the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant L.M. Khanna, with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M. Jaunpur in case no. 6720 of 2004 whereby the discharge application having additional prayer for doing further investigation under section 173(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the judgment and order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge E.C.Act Jaunpur in criminal revision No. 220 of 2010 whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed. The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Abu Sufiyan on 5.2.2004 at 9.10 p.m. against the applicant and other co -accused persons in case crime no. 70 of 2004 under sections 406, 417, 419, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 409 I.P.C. The above mentioned F.I.R. has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed by the learned magistrate concerned under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged that on 2.6.1998 and 17.9.1998, the first informant and his wife, Smt. Nanhi Begum had purchased a land, its sale deed was executed, its deed writer was Mohd. Ahmad alias Jhinnu, after five or six months of the execution of the sale deed, Mohd. Ahmad alias Jhinnu came to the house of the first informant and at the pretext of mutation original sale deed was taken away by him from the wife of the first informant. On being demanded, the same was not returned, then suspicion arose about the misuse of the sale deed. The first informant came to know that on 4.1.2004 Branch Manager of Union Bank of India Viveshvar Ganj, Varanasi disclosed the fact that his sale deed was used as guarantor in sanctioning a loan of Rs. 11 lakhs by the Bank to Indra Dev Singh on 3.9.2001, on that date, the applicant was in Saudi Arab, neither the first informant nor his wife had signed any such papers in becoming the guarantor and forgery was committed in preparing the documents, and by way of playing fraud an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs was sanctioned as a loan and the same amount was released in favour of Indra Dev Singh, its information was given to the police of Sarai Khawaja as well as to the S.P. Jaunpur but no action was taken against the co -accused persons, then an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, the same was allowed and a case was registered against the applicant and other co -accused persons, after investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. before the court concerned on which cognizance has been taken, being aggrieved from the charge sheet, the applicant moved a criminal misc. application no. 26566 of 2008 before this court, the same was finally disposed of on 1.10.2008 with a direction that in case the applicant moves an discharge application within 30 days from the date of the order passed by this court through his counsel, the same shall be heard and disposed of under the provision of law and till the disposal of that application the personal attendance of the applicant shall be dispensed with and N.B.W. issued against the applicant shall also be kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the order dated 1.10.2008 applicant moved a discharge application before the learned magistrate concerned, the same was rejected by the learned C.J.M. Jaunpur on 26.4.2010. The order dated 26.4.2010 was challenged by the applicant by way of filing criminal revision no. 220 of 2010, the same was dismissed on 14.7.2011 by the learned Special Judge E.C. Act, Jaunpur, being aggrieved from the impugned orders dated 26.4.2010 and 14.7.2011 the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was posted as Branch Manager, Union of India, by which the loan was sanctioned to Indra Dev Singh, the property was mortgaged, the loan was sanctioned after perusing the relevant documents, report submitted by the other authorities of the bank, the loan was sanctioned on the basis of the report submitted by the penal lawyer Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and the identification report submitted by him and an affidavit submitted by Abu Sufiyan and his wife Nanhi Begum, their declaration was made before the Notary Advocate Sri P.K.Srivastava and without doing proper investigation and without collecting any cogent evidence against the applicant, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant also whereas if any fraud or forgery has been committed it has been committed by some other persons. The applicant sanctioned the loan during the discharge of his official duties. Being a public servant the sanction was required under section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance but without obtaining any sanction the learned magistrate concerned has taken cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. According to the prosecution version itself applicant had apprised the first informant about the said incident and even on the basis of the material collected by the I.O. prima facie no offence under sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 467, 468, 409 I.P.C. is made out. The learned C.J.M. Jaunpur has committed manifest error by rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant and the same error has been committed by the learned revisional court by dismissing the revision on 14.7.2011. The impugned orders dated 26.4.2010 and 14.7.2011 are illegal and the same may be quashed.;