WP.1222-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1222 OF 2009 Ashok Korepal ...Petitioner Vs. The State & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Sujit B. Shelar, for the Petitioner. Mrs. V. R. Bhonsale, for Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 P.C. 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent-State. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the oder passed by the trial Court, rejecting his application filed for the discharge. The petitioner was working as a branch Manager in Punjab Sindh Bank. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner along with others had cheated WP.1222-09 - 2 - the bank by giving same day credit to the current account of M/s. Poise Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. against un-cleared cheques by dishonestly exceeding his powers. These cheques were subsequently dishonoured. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Manager, without waiting for normal clearance, gave same day credit by exceeding the powers, and on more than one occasion he has adopted the said procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a circular issued by the Company by which the petitioner was authorized to clear the said cheques. He further submitted that the Zonal Manager had also made statement thereby interpreted the circular to mean that apart from the advance, the Officers of the bank were permitted to clear the cheques to credit the account of the persons who had deposited the cheques before they were honoured. 4. After having perused the circular and the FIR, in my view, at this stage, it will not be possible to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not committed the said offence. So far as the interpretation of the circular is concerned, that too will have to be considered by the trial Court. The Apex Court in the case of - State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018] observed that at the time of framing the charge, the Court has to see whether the material on record is sufficient WP.1222-09 - 3 - for the purpose of raising a suspicion on the accused regarding his involvement in the offence and the learned trial Court is not expected to weigh and sift the evidence to find out whether the prosecution has material sufficient for the purpose of convicting the accused. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]