VIJAY LAKSHMI,J. - (1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh whereby the learned court below while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 has summoned the revisionist to face trial.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the then Accountant of State Bank of India, Gonda Branch, district Aligarh. The respondent no. 2 is the account holder in his bank. She had made a request for supply of cheque book and her request was simply forwarded on line by the Branch Manager to the Head Office at NOIDA. The cheque book was supplied by the Head Office, NOIDA in the name of account holder by registered post and the revisionist has no role to play in supply of cheque book. It is next contended that the bank, after acquiring knowledge of the incident, proceeded to indemnify the respondent no. 2 by putting the amount bank in her account. It is further contended that earlier by an application, the State of U.P. had also moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 6.5.2017. However, the State of U.P. filed a revision against the aforesaid order and the revisional court, vide order dated 4.7.2017 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the court below to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 As a result, the impugned order has been passed by the court below. It is further submitted that the departmental enquiry against the revisionist and other co-accused bank employees is still pending and the revisionist will face the consequences of those enquiries but no criminal case is made out against him, therefore, the impugned order whereby he has been summoned to face criminal trial is liable to be set aside and the revision deserves be allowed. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that under these circumstances there is hardly any chance of the conviction of the revisionist, whereas before exercising its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 a Court must arrive at a satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood would be convicted.;