KISHORI RAM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR
LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-3
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 29,2017

Kishori Ram Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Jharkhand And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANANT BIJAY SINGH,J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No.155 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4575 of 2016 for the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that this case has been lodged on the basis of written report of informant Mala Singh on 13.11.2016 alleging therein that her husband was working in Indian Oil Depot, he was died on 24.10.1993 . It is further alleged that the informant deposited Rs. 03 lacs as fixed deposit in the Bank of India, Maniatand Branch on 01.02.2007. The said Fixed Deposit was renewed after one year, when the informant approached the bank in the year, 2011, she was told that the fixed deposit certificate is forged. Informant received a letter in September, 2015 wherein it was mentioned that the loan amount of Rs. 75,000/ and interest has been adjusted against the fixed deposit. Thereafter, informant's son approached the bank and found that Rs. 15,000/ was withdrawn from the account of the informant on 23.05.2007, Rs. 32,000/ on 02.06.2007, Rs. 30,000/ on 12.06.2007, Rs. 60,000/ on 05.07.2007, Rs. 45,000/ on 18.08.2007 and Rs. 9,000/ on 09.07.2008. It is further alleged that the informant never took any loan from the bank and did not withdraw the money on the aforesaid dates. Petitioner was the cashier on the alleged dates of withdrawal from the account of the informant. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been registered.
(3.) It appears that under order dated 14.02.2017, case diary was called from the court concerned and under order dated 17.07.2017, express reminder was directed to be issued as the case diary was not received. Thereafter under order dated 04.09.2017 office was directed to call for explanation from the court concerned as to why despite issuance of requisites and reminder, case diary has not been transmitted to this Court. Further, Court concerned was directed to indicate the name of the police officer, from whose latches, the case diary has not been transmitted and the required explanation was directed to be submitted to this court on before 08.11.2017. Further, trial court was directed to ensure the transmission of the case diary to this court on or before the next date of hearing. Thereafter this case was listed for 08.11.2017. On that date, explanation as well as case diary has not been received.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.