Rongon Mukhopadhay,J. - (1.) Heard Sri J. P. Jha, learned senior advocate on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
(2.) In this application, petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2014 whereby and where under the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro in C. P. Case No. 56 of 2013 has been set aside and the trial court has been directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
(3.) A First Information Report was instituted by the informant who is a dealer of cows to the effect that one Padma Lochan Tiwari came to his dairy and selected 5 cows and agreed to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- as a sale consideration. Pursuant to such decision, the aforesaid Padma Lochan Tiwari gave an advance of Rs. 80,000/- to the informant. It has been alleged that on 05.07.2011, the Manager (petitioner no. 1) of Bank of India, Mamarkudar branch, Bokaro inspected the cows and on preparation of a sale letter sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/- and the same was transferred in the account of seller (informant) in his personal savings account. Since the entire loan was being given by the bank as loan, as such the advance amount of Rs. 80,000/- was returned back by the informant. Subsequently, as it appears from the First Information Report that, the bank had given a legal notice to the informant for not delivering the cows as agreed upon which was denied by the informant on the pretext that the cows had already been handed over to Padma Lochan Tiwari. It has also been alleged that the informant has an account in the Chas branch of Bank of India in which he had deposited on 08.02.2012 a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- and the final balance which stood in the account was to the tune of Rs. 2,12,722/-. It was also stated therein that he had issued a cheque on 14.03.2012 in the name of Shri Ram Yadav which however was dishonoured and when he asked about the balance amount from the petitioner no. 2, no positive reply was given which led the informant to suspect that the entire amount has been embezzled by the petitioners.;