Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.5.2009 Jagmeet Singh ......Petitioner Versus M.S.Bedi, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch Sangrur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Matwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Jagmeet Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of judgment dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala, vide which the private criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and for quashing order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Adhoc) vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It has further been prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 12 be directed to be summoned for standing trial for offences under Section 465 , 471 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner joined as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with State Bank of Patiala on 8.9.1987 and remained posted at the branch of the said bank at Dharampura Bazar, Patiala upto 30.4.1999. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on 28.4.1999 by the bank. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents and vide order dated 24.10.2007, the same was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,(Adhoc), Patiala vide order dated 22.7.2008. Hence, the present petition. The facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 1 to 6 are under:- “The present complaint has been filed by complainant Jagmeet Singh against the accused MS Bedi and others under Section 465/471 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC on the averments that the complainant joined State Bank of Patiala as clerk cum cashier on 18.9.87 to 30.4.1999. On 5.11.1997 the complainant applied for gold loan of Rs. 7500/- which was denied to Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 3 the complainant because of inimical attitude of respondent no.1 who was the Manager at that time. The complainant was in dire need of money and had to raise the amount from other sources and to suffer humiliation on this account. The compliant served a legal notice dated 17.11.97 on the bank seeking damages for the denial of the said loan. As no reply was received from the bank the complainant filed a suit for damages against the bank and others. After the service of the notice, the respondent no.1 became vindictive and got issued to the complainant charge sheet dated 21.5.98 alleging an imagined incident dated 8.5.98. The charge sheet and reply thereto are also attached with the complaint. An inquiry was conducted on the charge sheet with respondent no.10 as the inquiry officer and respondent no.9 as the Bank's Presiding Officer. The charges levelled against the complainant were as under :- “On 8.5.98 while working on current account seat, you were advised by the branch manager to take loose current account sheets from Sh. Jeewan Bhatia, daftri (Offg) after putting your signatures in the loose leaf register and open the current accounts of M/s Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 4 Drishti Employment and M/s Textile. You bluntly refused to put your signatures in the said register. The second request made to you by the branch manager in this regard was also futile. You thus disobeyed the reasonable and lawful orders of the branch manager and vitiated customer service. “2. on being issued a letter of explanation bearing no.25 dated 8.5.98 through Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, following your refusal to take it. After the said letter was returned to the branch manager by Shri Goyal following your refusal to take it, you crossed all limits of indecency, rushed to the branch manager’s cabin, snatched the above letter from him and tore it into pieces in the banking hall in the presence of staff members and customers. You also uttered loudly the following words, against the branch manager in the banking hall”. 2. It is further averred that on 8.5.98 there was no loose leaf issue register in the branch. The complainant was posting salary lists which was a full day job when at about 1.00 p.m respondent no.1 told him to shift to the current accounts counter. The person at the current accounts counter was shifted to the FD counter and the one at the Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 5 FD counter was shifted to the payments counter. The head cashier at the payment’s counter was spared. This was all done on oral orders. The complainant did his work at the current accounts counter and also completed the posting of salary lists. The complainant was neither advised to take two loose current accounts sheets nor he refused to sign the loose leaf issue register as there was no such register in the branch on that day. There were already 6 to 7 sheets on the binder and there was no occasion for respondent no. 1 to advise the complainant to get issued two loose sheets, so respondent no.4 never asked the complainant to sign the register. In fact respondent no.1 told the complainant to sign the receipt for two current account sheets on a piece of paper which the complainant refused, firstly because the sheets were not got issued by the complainant and secondly because no one in the branch had ever issued receipt for such sheets in this manner. In the list of documents dated 20. 7.98 the bank did not cite the loose leaf issue register as a document to be produced in bank evidence though it was the most important document to be produced if the enquiry were to proceed further. The bank did not produce the register despite the fact that the complainant Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 6 had been denying its existence from the very beginning and in spite of the fact that the band witnesses were cross examined on this point by the complainant. The bank evidence was closed on 6.1.99 A forged and fabricated loose leaf issue register was produced by respondent no.9. On 21.1.99 in response to the order of respondent no.10 on the application of the complainant dated 6.1.99 the same was made Ex D8/6 in the inquiry. The said register was forged and fabricated by and at the instance of respondent no.1 in collaboration with respondent no.2 to 8 after 6.1.99 at Dharampura Bazar Branch, Patiala. The register when produced in the inquiry was blank except for pages 5 to 9 and 11. Page no.5 is in the handwriting of respondent no.4, page no.6 is in the handwriting of respondent no.4 and has two remarks regarding issue of sheets to the complainant in the hand writing of respondent no.3 who has signed at 10 places. The page has also been signed by respondent no.5 and 6 who were posted at that time in the branch at one place each. Pages no.7 & 8 are in the hand writing of respondent no.4 Page no.9 is already in the handwriting of respondent no.4 and bears signatures of respondent no.7 at three places and those of respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 7 no.8 at six places. It also bears remarks and signatures by respondent no.1 two places. Page no.11 is in the hand writing of respondent no.2 who was Assistant Manager in the branch at that time. 3. It is further averred that the fact that there is no such register on 8.5.98 in the branch is borne out, inter alia from the following grounds as mentioned in para no. 10 of the plaint :- a. No such register was produced in Bank evidence during the enquiry. ‘ If any such register was there and it contained an entry like the one in EX D-8/6 showing that the complainant had refused to sign it even after obtaining two loose sheets then it was the most important document to be placed on file against him. b. Only 6 pages of some forged register were produced, that too on the application of the complainant and on an order from then enquiry officer, and respondent no.1 in his cross examination refused to answer any question concerning the said register and could not even tell the date on which it was opened. c. Respondent no.2 in his cross examination, Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 8 admitted that the non maintenance of such register was pointed out by the auditors and the authenticity of Ex D-8/6 should be seen in the context of this statement of respondent no.2 d. Shri RK Goyal, PW3, Sh. Daljit Singh DW1 AND Sh. Paramjit Singh DW4 denied the existence of such register in the branch. Shri Goyal has been working in the branch since 1978 and Shri Daljit Singh and Shri Paramjit Singh since 1985. 4. It is further averred that the fact that the register produce was forged and fabricated by respondents no.1 to 8 after 6.1.99 is borne out, inter alia on the following grounds as mentioned in para no. 11 bove in the complaint from the following:- a. The register was blank except for page no.5 to 9 and 11. b. The register produced had entries taken straight from the Stationary Requisition Register, SBP 89 and can in no way be said to show actual distribution of loose sheets. c. Para no.5 lists 13 issues of different number of sheets but 6 out of the 8 columns are blank. This page has an entry dated 18.3.98 struck out which Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 9 entry re appears on page 8 as the sole entry on that page and even date is missing here. d. The very first entry on page 6 is dated 8.3.90 a day which was a Sunday. This issue (906501 to 907000) has been shown again as split up into 4 entries on 9.3.98, 12.4.98, 3.5.98 and 20.5.98. The 9.3.98 issue is purportedly made to respondent no.5 who is a Gunman and was on leave on that day i.e 9.3.98. The 12.4.98 issue has been shown as made to respondent no.3 but 12.4.98 again happens to be a Sunday. Still one more entry is dated 6.9.96 which was a Sunday. Of the 14 entries on page 6, four show issue of sheets to the complainant on dates after 8.5.98. These entries do not bear signatures of the complainant nor do they show that the complainant refused to sign. 6 issues have been shown as made to respondent no.3 who is the S.A and whose duties do not include opening of accounts and as such he has nothing to do with the issue of sheets. e. Page 7 lists 28 issues of sheets and again 6 out of the columns are blank. In five of the issues even Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 10 number of sheets issued has not been mentioned. f. Page 8 has just one entry discussed in ( c ) above. g. Page 9 which has been painstakingly forged seems complete in all respect and like all forgeries is a case of an over kill. It is only against the two issues made to the complainant and against none else that the complete name of the account holder is written in the entry Ex D8/6. It has 11 entries against 2 of which is written “Jagmeet Sengh refused to sign” but as mentioned in ( d ) above entries showing issues made to the complainant after 8.5.98 which do not have initials of the complainant against them, show no such remarks. The page opens on the very date of the alleged incident i.e 8.5.98. It has entries till 19.11.98 but strangely an entry dated 6.7.98 appears on page 11. h. Page 11 has just one entry dated 6.7.98 discussed in ( g ) above. i. On 13.10.98 respondent no.3 was on leave but has been shown as having received sheets twice on that day. He is again shown to have received sheets on 6.9.98 which was a Sunday. As the Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 11 register was prepared after 6.1.99 and in a hurry sheets were shown as having been issued to various persons without verifying when and to whom these were issued. 5. The complainant had further averred that to substantiate allegation no.2 in the charge sheet, respondent no.1 forged and fabricated State Bank of Patiala letter no.25 dated 8.5.98. Statement of respondent no. 1 dated 8.5.98, letter no.37 dated9.5.98 and statement of Shri Karnail Singh Chungi Clerk, MC Patiala and one Shri Nand Kumar. The fact regarding the producing of the forged register in the inquiry was brought to the notice of respondent no.11 who was the AGM-1 at that time by the complainant through an application dated 1.2.99 but respondent no.11 sent a reply to the effect that whatever the complainant had to say should be said to the respondent no. 10. The complainant had already brought the fact to the notice of respondent no.10 and had also protested against its being produced and considered in evidence and also so protested after 1.2.99 but to no effect. The respondent no.9 was knowing the forgery from the very beginning and fraudulently and dishonestly used the forged register and other Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 12 documents. The respondent no.10 was also in the knowledge of forgery but still used the same to harm the complainant and the same is apparent from the fact that he tried to explain any material discrepancies and ignored all proof of forgery in his findings on charge no.1 in his report. The most relevant pare in this regard was produced by the complainant as under:- “The EPA pleaded that Ex D8/6 is photo copy of some forged register which is not convincing and is an after thought. The EPA failed to produce any evidence on enquiry to prove his version that Shri Pushpinder Singh Gunman was on leave on 9.3.98. Also the EPA has wrongly stated that sheets were issued to Sh. PN Saxena on 12.4.98 (Sunday) because as per Ex D8/6 (page 6) Sh. Saxena has received the sheet on 22.4.98 and not on 12.4.98 as contended by EPA. However, to find out the truth the E.O. again perused the original loose leaf issue register of the Branch and found that the dates pointed out by the EPA as 8.3.98, 9.3.98, 12.4.98 and 6.9.98 are actually written as 18.3.98, 22.4.98 and 16.9.98. Hence the plea of the EPA that Ex D8/6 is the photocopy of some forged register is not Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 13 tenable”. 6. The respondent no. 10 has discussed the entire evidence in terms of dates as mentioned by the witnesses but when faced with the averments of the complainant regarding these dates falling on Sunday, he came out that a fallacious explanation in the place of all evidence to the contrary and without giving due consideration to the written briefs dated 3.3.99 submitted by the complainant. The complainant denied the objections dated 29.3.99 against the enquiry report before respondent n o.11. A show cause notice dated 6.4.99 was issued to the complainant by respondent no.11. The reply was submitted by the complainant on 16.4.99 and the complainant was compulsorily retired from service by respondent no.11 vide order dated 28.4.99. The appeal against order dated 28.4.99 was preferred by complainant before respondent no.2 who was the Dy General Manager at that time and rejected the same vide order dated 8.7.99. The respondent no. 1 to 8 by making false documents with intent to cause damage and injury to the complainant and by using the same as genuine, have committed the offence under section 465 and 471 read with section 34 and 120-B IPC. The respondents no. 9 to Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 14 12 by using as genuine those documents have also committed these offences. Hence the present complaint. In order to substantiate his complaint, the petitioner led his preliminary evidence. The petitioner, who himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4), examined Narinder Sharma, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Patiala (PW-1), Paramjit Singh, Clerk of the Bank (PW-2), Daljit Singh, Cashier-cum-Clerk (PW-3) and Atul Kumar Singla, handwriting expert (PW-5). Learned trial Court observed that the complaint had been filed on the ground that the register SBP – 89 (Ex.P-2) had been forged by the respondents in connivance with each other. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the preliminary evidence, held that PW1 Narinder Sharma, PW2 Paramjit Singh, clerk had not deposed that the entries had been forged in the register by the respondents. It has further been observed that it was not proved on record that the entries in the register had been made at a later stage because the entries could have been made by the respondents being employees of the bank. In the inquiry conducted against the petitioner, charges levelled against him were held to be proved. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said finding of the Inquiry Officer was dismissed. A civil suit was filed by the petitioner challenging the inquiry proceedings and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner had also prayed in the said suit that the register was forged Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 15 but there was no finding given by the Civil Court, while dismissing the suit that the entries in the register in question had been forged. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, observed that the petitioner had failed to establish that the register Ex.P-2 had been forged by the respondents. The cuttings in the register did not lead to the inference that there had been any forgery. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala in para Nos. 8 and 9 of his order observed as under:- “8. The complainant by his evidence has not been able to prove that the register Ex. P-2 has been forged by the accused persons. PW1 Narinder Sharma and PW2 Paramjit Singh have nowhere stated that the register has been forged by the accused persons. The complainant has not brought any evidence to show that any entry has been forged by the accused persons. The alleged cuttings do not make the forgery. The inquiry was held against the complainant and he was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement. His appeal was also dismissed. The complainant then filed a civil suit which was also dismissed and there is no finding regarding any alleged forgery in those proceedings. The inquiry as well as civil suit have already been decided against the complainant. Criminal Misc. No.M-2368 of 2009 16 The said register was never used by the bank during inquiry. 9. So, I am of the view that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons under sections 465/471 read with section 34 and 120-B IPC. So I am of the view that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Hence the revision petition of the revision petitioner is dismissed.” The reasons given by the Courts below, while dismissing the complaint and revision petition, are good reasons. The petitioner had failed to establish on record that the register in question had been forged. The petitioner was compulsorily retired and his appeal was also dismissed. Hence, no interference in the impugned orders is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2009 anita