vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 1998 K.S. Vishwanathan ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.A.D. Dahotre & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.G. Damle for Petitioner Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 31, 2008 MARCH 31, 2008 MARCH 31, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . The petition challenges the order passed by the JMFC, Pune dated 29.4.1992 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for discharge. The petitioner was working as an Assistant General Manager in the State Bank of India when Respondent No.1 i.e. the complainant and Respondent No.2, the accused No.1 approached him for a loan. Accused No.1 was an employee with the State Bank of India and at that point of time was married to the complainant. The loan obtained was repaid to the bank by accused No.1. While securing the loan, the complainant and accused No.1 had deposited as security two National Savings Certificates of Rs.5000/- each. These certificates were in the joint names of the complainant and accused No.1. When the loan was obtained, both the complainant and the accused No.1 had agreed that all securities which were deposited with the : 2 : bank for obtaining the loan which were in their joint names would be at the absolute disposal of either the complainant or the accused or the survivor. Accused No.1 being an employee of the State Bank of India, repaid the loan and the National Savings Certificates were returned to her. It appears that matrimonial disputes arose between the complainant and accused No.1 which resulted in divorce in 1995. The complainant thereafter filed the present complaint. The main allegation in the complaint against the petitioner accused No.2 is that he had conspired with accused No.1 and aided in the commission of offences punishable under sections 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by misappropriating the amounts of the National Savings Certificates and defrauding the complainant. 2. Process was issued by the trial Court. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e. the petitioners herein, filed separate applications for discharge before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner accused No.2 contended that he had acted as a Manager of the Bank and on the basis of the consent of both the complainant and the accused No.2 had returned the National Savings Certificates to Accused No.2. The trial Court has dismissed both the applications for discharge by a common order. The trial Court has noted the say of the petitioner that on maturity of the National Savings : 3 : Certificates, an amount of Rs.19010/- was received by the State Bank of India was credited to the account of accused No.1, since she was the holder of the National Savings Certificates. The trial Court has observed that the loan was repaid in 1992. The Certificates were forfeited for not repaying the loan of Rs.20,000/-, with which the complainant had no concern and, therefore, the process issued against the petitioner disclosed the offence, prima facie. 3. Mr.Damle, appearing for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner has acted solely to protect the bank’s interests as a Manager. The loan was obtained by the complainant and accused No.2 jointly. Both of them had agreed that on maturity, the securities i.e. the National Savings Certificates should be returned to either one of them. On this basis when the National Savings Certificates matured, the petitioner returned the amounts under those certificates to accused No.1 and, therefore, there is no offence committed by him. Mr.Damle then points out that the acts attributed to the petitioner do not constitute offences under section 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the trial Court has committed an error by not discharging the petitioner. 4. In my view, it is obvious that the petitioner : 4 : has acted in accordance with his duties as a Manager of the bank. He has paid the amount to accused No.1 on the basis of the consent of the complainant and accused No.1 for repayment of the amount to either of them. In such circumstances, the repayment of the amount to accused No.1 by the petitioner cannot amount to an offence. The trial Court was, therefore, in error in concluding that the petitioner could not be discharged. 5. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code insofar as it relates to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.