Criminal Misc. No. M-8009 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-8009 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.03.2009 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Amarjit Singh under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.126 dated 16.12.2008 registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The facts in brief are that the accused/ appellants are employees of Hoshiarpur Central Coop. Bank Limited, Baja Chak Branch Hoshiarpur. Managing Director of the Hoshiarpur, Central Coop. Bank Limited, vide letter dated 15.12.2008 requested the Station House Officer, Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur to register a case against the accused/ applicants, Amarjit Singh and others on the allegations that all these persons had committed fraud with the bank and further committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating Rs.1,19,72,016/- (Rs. One Crore, Nineteen Lacs, Seventy Two Thousand and Sixteen Only). A few instances of Criminal Misc. No. M-8009 of 2009 (O&M) -2- misappropriation of the funds of the bank and committing forgery in the bank accounts maintained by the bank are that accused/ applicants granted loan to the persons in excess of their revolving cash credit limit, that account books were forged so as to pretend that entries on the debit and credit side tally with each other, loans were allegedly granted to some persons who had already died; that in order to cause financial loss to the bank interest received on loan was debited and amount was shown to be credited against the saving accounts revolving cash credit limit and by showing the recovery of M.T. Loans. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As is borne out from the record, extensive inquiry was conducted before registration of the same and the same revealed as to how the petitioner along with others criminally misappropriated the funds of the Bank by not showing the corresponding entries in the cash book of the Bank. Even though, the loanees had returned the loan amount, but the entries were not made in the account books. Some amount is shown to have been disbursed in favour of dead persons. Some wrong entries were made in the account books of the Bank. The embezzlement allegedly committed by the petitioner along with others works out to Rs.1,19,72,016/-. As alleged, the petitioner along-with his co-accused has concealed the account books of the bank. Thus, palpably, it is such a case in which the custodial interrogation is required. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- Criminal Misc. No. M-8009 of 2009 (O&M) -3- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” The Court considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duty and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. What mode or modus operandi was adopted by the petitioner to defalcate such a loom- larging amount can be detected only if he is subjected to custodial interrogation. Thus taking into consideration the entirety of facts and Criminal Misc. No. M-8009 of 2009 (O&M) -4- circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this petition merit dismissal. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. March 24, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No