IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.803 of 2009 RANJEET KUMAR SON OF RAM DULAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –SHOBHI DUMRA, P.S. ARA MUFASSIL, BHOJPUR …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. A.C. SAHU, THE THEN BANK MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA BHOJPUR AT ARA 3. BINOD KUMAR OJHA, THE THEN ASSISTANT BANK MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, BHOJPUR AT ARA 4. SUNIL KUMAR, THE THEN ASSISTANT BANK MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, BHOJPUR AT ARA …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 02. 28.01.2011 The complainant is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Cr. Rev. No. 23 of 2009 (Binod Kumar Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar), whereby revision application preferred by o.p.nos. 2 to 4 has been considered and allowed. It appears that an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under section 319 Cr. P.C. seeking issuance of summons against o.p.nos. 2 to 4 for standing trial. The said application was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Ara by order dated 03.01.2009. Aggrieved over the said order, o.p.nos. 2 to 4 preferred said revision application. Learned revisional court has observed as under in paragraphs 8 and 9: “8. It is an admitted fact that the money of the complainant was withdrawn by forging his signature by one Binay Kumar Sharma and for that he has been convicted by a competent court of law. Now the complainant wants to prosecute the bank officials in the same case by passing the impugned order. The revisionist who are bank officials are summoned to face trial. 9. After hearing the learned counsels of the parties and after going through the entire record and document filed by revisionist, I am of the view that 2 the matter was enquired by a competent court of law. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused Binay Kumar Sharma who was the person who withdrawn money after impersonating the signature of the complainant and after trial Binay Kumar Sharma was convicted. The bank officials including the revisionist were prosecution witnesses and on their deposition Binay Kumar Sharma was convicted. Therefore, now prosecution of the bank officials for the same offence, when a person has been made responsible for the withdrawal of the money is not justified. Apart from that the petition u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. filed earlier by the complainant was rejected by the same court. Against that order no revision was filed by the prosecution. Therefore, the matter set at rest. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order for summoning of the bank officials in the said case is not justified and proper for ends of justice. It amount of vexing and harassing of the bank officials. Therefore the revision has substance and accordingly revision is allowed and order of the learned court below is hereby set aside.” Considering the reasons assigned by revisional court in order impugned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. This Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )