- (1.) Through this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure one of the accused of G. R. Case No. 422/93 (Kotowali PS. Case No. 412/93) has prayed for quashing the proceeding pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cooch Behar.
(2.) in short, the facts leading to filing of the instant application are as follows : Dinabandhu Barman, the Branch Manager of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank lodged a F.I.R. on 24.12.93 alleging that one Bipul Karmakar, New L'oknath Bhandar, Bhabaniganj Bazar, Cooch Behar opened one savings bank account on 12.7.93 (SB A/c. No. 4185) depositing Rs. 2.500/- and the said account holder was duly introduced by one Archana Sengupta having one savings bank account with the same branch. Thereafter, the Branch Manager received two M. T. SI. No. 13/93, Printed No. MT/G being No. 17519 dated 20.8.93 amounting to Rs. 12,000/- only from the Hakimpara, Siliguri Branch of I the aforesaid bank to be credited in the savings bank account of said Bipul Karmakar. Thereafter, the said SB. A/C, holder withdrew the amount 2,450/- in three instalments. The M.T. No. 13/93 for Rs. 12,000/- was credited in SB, A/c. No. 4185 on 25.8.93 and the account holder of the said savings bank account Bipul Karmakar withdrew the amount of Rs. 12,000/- in 4 instalments. Again on 20.11.93 another M. T. SI. No. 14/ 93/19 of Rs. 23,000/- was credited to the said SB. A/c, of the said Bipul Karmakar and he ultimately withdrew the entire M.Ts. amount of Rs. 23,000/- in two instalments. it is alleged that on verification of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hakimpara Branch, Siliguri by the audit and Vigilance Cell, it was found from a letter dated 20.12.93 that no such M.T. document amounting to Rs. 12.12.93 that no Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 23,000/- was issued from the said Branch. In fact the M.T. instruments mentioned above were never in existence in Hakimpara Branch, although the same was used for cheating the bank by the said Bipul Karmakar. it is the contention of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time in 1993 petitioner was in the Head Office of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank situated at Cooch Behar as Sr. Manager (Planning & Development) Department. On 19th April, 1995 he was transferred to Bazirhat Branch as Branch Manager Scale-ii of the said Bank and at the time of filing the application he was serving as such. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that in the F.I.R. there was no allegation raised against the petitioner. After the police, on the basis of the F.I.R., which is marked Annexure-A to the petition, started the aforesaid case under Section 468/420 of the I.P.C., the Investigating Officer came to the Head Office and interrogated the petitioner. it is specifically alleged that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the present petitioner and other persons on 10.4.96 and from the charge-sheet, it transpire that one Kishalay Dutta, branch Manager of Gramin Bank, Hakimpara Branch, Dist-Darjeeling who is also an accused in the case was respcrisibie for the forgery on the M.T. forms. The petitioner wants to get the charge-sheet quashed against him in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
(3.) I have heard the submissions Mr. Ashish Kr. Sanyal who with Mr. Uttam Mazumdar appeared for the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that the F.I.R. has failed to disclose any allegation against the present petitioner. Even the charge-sheet which the police filed on completion of the investigation failed to specifically indicate how the petitioner was involved in the offence complained of. Mr. Sanyal has further submitted that the only relevant allegation which has been raised to connect the accused with the offence complained of that is to say being involved in forgery of document and the use of such document to defraud the bank is the allegation that the accused/petitioner at the relevant point of time, was the Sr. Manager (Planning and Development Department), at the Head office at Cooch Behar of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and had the control over the Printing Stationary Section of the Bank. But there is nothing to show that the instruments which were used for the commission of the crime, namely, M.T. instruments were in direct custody of the petitioner. He has further submitted that in a criminal case a person can not ordinarily be held responsible for acts of others unless it is shown that such person had any part to play in the act or acts complained of. Section 10 of the Evidence Act embodies one of the exceptions to this general rule but in order to bring the case within the mischief of that section, prosecution is required to establish the existence of a common design shared by some persons who have combined together for the same illegal purpose and any act done by one of the persons in pursuance of the original design and with reference to the common object, would be construed as the act of the whole. But in the instant case, besides the allegation that accused as the Head of the Department of the Bank in which similar instruments, namely, M.T. forma were kept, there is no allegation raised which shows or can show that the accused had got a part to play in the commission of the offence.;