H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) BY Court. - -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the opposite party No. 2 even though the notice has been validly served upon the said opposite party No. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in Complaint Case No. 695 of 1998 filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, by the complainant Sardar Singh, opposite party No. 2 in this case. Apart from the other accused persons, the petitioner has been made accused in this case showing that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager in the Central Bank of India, Silchar Branch, in the State of Assam.
(2.) FROM perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant had made some deposits with the M/s Telco Dealers Leasing and Finance Company Ltd., Bombay on 19.5.1995 jointly with his son. Subsequently, one cheque was issued through registered post and it appears that the complainant did not receive the same. The complainant was asked to file indemnity bond for issuance of the duplicate cheque, which was filed by the complainant. Subsequently, the Finance Company informed the complainant that the earlier cheque issued in favour of the complainant had been withdrawn at Silchar, Assam. The only allegation that has been made with respect to the petitioner in the complaint petition is that the complainant was informed by the Central Bank of India, Silchar Branch, Assam that the cheque had been encashed by some person impersonating himself as the complainant. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid cheque issued by the company had been credited by the Central Bank of India, Silchar, Assam within a few hours. This apart, there is no allegation against the petitioner in the entire complaint petition. The statement of the complainant was also recorded on solemn affirmation and it appears that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner therein.
(3.) THE petitioner admittedly was posted at the relevant time at Central Bank of India, Silchar Branch in the State of Assam and he had no occasion to identify the complainant. Rather, it appears that the cheque was withdrawn by someone falsely impersonating to be the complainant, for which the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence.;