THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1414 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in C.C.No.25 of 1997 dated 17.9.1998 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is sponsored by M/s Canara Bank. The petitioner company is engaged in activities relating to advancement of housing loans to individuals/companies etc., and the respondents-Accused are its employees. Further, the respondents-Accused granted housing loans to fictitious persons violating the norms of the petitioner company and misappropriated the amounts by playing fraud on the petitioner company. On a complaint given by the petitioner company, the case was registered in Crime No.11/96 under Sections 420, 409 IPC at Abids Police Station, Hyderabad against the respondents-accused and after conducting the investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed and the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file under Sections 420, 468, 471, 419 and 409 IPC. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to 105 were marked and for the defence, none was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after the consideration of the entire matter, found the accused not guilty of the offence with which they were charged and acquitted them of the charges accordingly, whereas, questioning the said order, the present revision is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner company that as per the findings of the trial Court S.Sudheer, Chief Manager of the petitioner company (L.W.21) is the main culprit because being the sanctioning and disbursing officer of the petitioner company and without obtaining necessary legal opinion and without verifying relevant documents, he sanctioned various loans and also disbursed the amounts and the prosecution or the trial Court should have taken necessary steps for impleading him as an accused in the case and accordingly prosecuting him by virtue of Section 398 Cr.P.C. which provides that the trial Court got right to do so in respect of which he has relied upon decision in KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF M.P.[1] and it is significant that as much as Rs.40.00 lakhs was misappropriated by him and therefore, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court for taking necessary action against him accordingly. According to the learned counsel, there is no incriminating material against the accused. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents-accused that the alleged incident took place 19 years ago and many other accused concerned in the case could not be served with any notices issued by this Court even and surprisingly neither the defacto- complainant nor the complainant in the case had taken any steps under Section 390 Cr.P.C. for impleading the Chief Manager/Sanctioning and disbursing authority as accused in the case and consequently for prosecuting him and by remanding the matter to the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served at this stage and further, the accused cannot be made to suffer for the sake of non-adding the Chief Manager/Sanctioning and disbursing authority, whereas they already suffered a lot by unnecessarily attending to various courts for 19 years wasting valuable part of their life and spending huge amounts towards relevant expenditure. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to allow the revision and to remand the matter to the trial Court for the purpose of impleading the Chief Manager/Sanctioning and disbursing authority to prosecute him. It is pertinent to note here as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that some other accused in the case could not be served with any notices because their whereabouts were not known. No doubt the Chief Manager/Sanctioning and disbursing authority happened to be the main culprit as per the record and the trial Court got every authority to take necessary steps for impleading him as accused and prosecute him accordingly. Further similarly the defacto-complainant or the complainant also should have taken necessary steps in that regard. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that after lapse of 19/20 years no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter and adding the Chief Manager at this stage. In order to dispose of the matter rationally, it is also to be looked into whether there is a possibility of adducing necessary evidence in order to establish the guilt of the authority subject to taking all necessary measures. As it is futile to take such steps, I do not find any grounds to accede to the plea taken on behalf of the defacto-complainant. Further, already the accused suffered a lot by unnecessarily facing trial and wasting lot of their valuable time and money and if the plea of the defacto-complainant is accepted, they will have to suffer further besides the fact that no useful purpose would be served by doing so. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the revision and is therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 13.7.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1414 of 2004 13.7.2011 [1] AIR 1997 SC 2485