IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40268 of 2011 Ratan Kumar Sinha son of Late Shivanath Prasad Sinha, R/O Mohalla-A/25, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna.1, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, Distt- Patna………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sanjay Nath Tiwari, Son of Sudama Nath Tiwari, R/O village-Amawan Bujurg, P.O.Kubernath, P.S.Kubernath, Distt- Kushinagar (Uttar Pradesh), At present- District Agriculture Officer, Siwan, Distt-Siwan……Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State:- Akbar Ali, APP ---------------------------------- 2/ 16thDecember 2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner and taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. In spite of having been communicated by the District Agriculture Officer, Siwan to the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Siwan vide Letter No.1457 dated 29.12.2010 to stop payment from its account so detailed therein, there has been withdrawal of Rs. 5 Lacs on 22.12.2010, 23.12.2010 and 24.12.2010 and for that on written report of District Agriculture Officer, Siwan, Town P.S. Case No. 303/2010 has been registered under 2 Sections 467, 468, 469,471, 420 and 120B IPC. Petitioner, Ratan Kumar Sinha who is not named in the FIR being apprehended during course of investigation and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently thereof, after completing investigation, the police have submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which vide order dated 2.6.2011 cognizance has been taken, the order impugned which led filing of instant petition on his behalf. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he is not at all responsible for any sort of negligence because of the fact that as per annexures of the FIR, stopped payment has been made over the relevant account on 28.10.2010, much after the date on which withdrawal was made. The correspondence whatever been was in between the Chief Manager and District Agriculture Officer, Siwan of which in usual phenomena could not be known to the petitioner because he is not at all concerned with the administrative function. Also submitted that he had simply passed the cheque and so his liability cannot be fixed for the offence so alleged. As such, prayer is that the order of the cognizance should be quashed. 3 On the other hand, State opposed and submitted that without active connivance of the petitioner, one cannot dare to withdraw the amount. So far remaining set of argument is concerned, that happens to be a matter of trial. The status of petitioner that he had simply passed the cheque itself finds belie from Annexure-B of supplementary affidavit wherein, while reporting the matter to the S.P. by the Chief Manager, it has been incorporated that the bank is functioning under single window process. That means to say the entertainment of cheque and payment is simultaneously made from the same window. The elaborate function is itself incorporated as:- “gekjk cSad bl {ks= dk lcls cM+k cSad gS tks viuk cSafdax laca/kh dk;Z rhu eafty bekjr esa djrk gS vkSj ,dy f[kM+dh iz.kkyh ds varxZr ,d vf/kdkjh dks u;s xzkgdksa dk [kkrk [kksyuk] psd ikl djuk] xzkgdksa ds fofHkUu rjg ds iwNrkN dk tokc nsuk lkFk gh ?kjsyw cSad laca/kh iwNrkN dh tkudkjh vius vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks le;&le; ij nsuk muds nSfud fdz;kdyki 'kkfey gS ftl otg ls vf/kdkjh ruko esa Hkh jgrs gS vkSj ;gh otg gS fd lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gekjs dherh xzkgd ,oa ljdkj ds vax ds lqfo/kk dk /;ku j[krs gq, fnukad 22-12-10] 23-12-10 ,oa 24-12-10 dks mfpr 4 lko/kkuh cjrus ds ckotwn Hkh gLrk{kj dk feyku dj [kkrs esa jkf’k dh miyC/krk ,oa psd esa mfYy[khr funsZ’kksa dk vuqikyu Jh vkj ds flUgk }kjk flLVe esa fpfUgr fd, x, stop payment ij /;ku fopfyr gksuk LokHkkfod gqvkA” That means to say the letter dated 17.3.2011 sent by Chief Manager, Bank, itself detailed the mode of work and the lapses committed on the part of petitioner. Whatever other grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, certainly that happens to be the matter of trial. Consequent thereupon, I do not see any merit in this petition and is accordingly, rejected. perwez ( Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)