Indian Bank, Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur through its Chief Manager v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2010 Indian Bank, Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur through its Chief Manager … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh ... … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate For the Appellant For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate --- C.A.V. On 28.11.2023 Pronounced on 22.12.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner Indian Bank, Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur has filed this criminal revision application challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 29.04.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur, in supplementary file of S.T. Case No.201/1999, whereby and wherein the learned court directed the petitioner to release Rs.10,60,737.95 in favour of the opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh alongwith compound interest at Bank rate prevailing from time to time till the date of release. 3. Initially Bistupur P.S. Case No.177/1998, corresponding to G.R. No.1368/1998 was instituted under Sections 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/471/ 436/120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of typed report of the informant Shyamal Kumar Sinha who was Senior Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Jamshedpur alleging therein that during the intervening night between 05.07.1998 and 06.07.1998, the Indian Bank had caught fire. Some of the document were burnt. During the verification, it was found that a leaf of draft register was torn. It further transpires that leaf of draft book bearing No.018037 was also missing. On enquiry, it further transpired that the said draft was fraudulently prepared in the name of Laxmi Gangapati wife of accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao. The draft was encashed from Bank of Baroda at Rourkella (Orissa) Branch on 13.06.1998. This draft was to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. On enquiry, it further transpired that accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao had fraudulently withdrawn more than Rs. 3 crores by preparing forged drafts in the name of his wife and share companies. -2- 4. It is further case of the prosecution that accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao laundered some of the embezzled amount through the opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh, who operated share brokerage firm in the name of M/s Money Multiplier Services. This firm had a current account No.3178 in Canara Bank, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur in which Rs.10,60,737.95 was transferred at the time of institution of the case. 5. On the application filed by the petitioner the learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur ordered that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,60,737.95 be transferred to account of Indian Bank Bistupur, Jamshedpur. The same was transferred by draft No.316268 which was received by Senior Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Bistupur Branch. 6. The opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh faced trial in the aforesaid case vide S.T. No.201/1999 alongwith main accused
Legal Reasoning
R. Rama Koteshwar Rao. The court of Sri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur held the accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao guilty of offences under Sections 409/420/467/468/472 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted the opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh as no material was available against him in the said case. 7. After the opposite party No.2 was acquitted, he filed an application before the court of Sri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur, who vide order dated 29.04.2010, passed in Supplementary record of S.T. No.201/1999 directed that the amount of Rs.10,60,737.95 be released to him alongwith compound interest at Bank rate prevailing from time to time till the date of release. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present application. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there has been evidence to the extent that the main accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao laundered money acquired by embezzling about 3 crores from Indian Bank, Jamshedpur. -3- 9. Attention has been drawn towards the statement of Shyamal Kumar Sinha P.W.1 recorded at paragraph-12 of his deposition wherein he has stated that the bank account of J.P. Singh was used in withdrawing the embezzled amount. She has further drawn attention towards the statement of J. U. Mansukhani P.W.3 recorded at paragraph-1 of his deposition wherein he stated that the opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh was his client and he had purchased share for him. Jai Prakash Singh had invested Rs.2 crores within a year through his brokerage firm. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Suryanarayanan and Another as reported (2020) 12 SCC 637, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held in paragraph-16 that:- “16. The above observations indicate that the authority which is entrusted to the Court under Section 452 CrPC (equivalent to Section 517 of the Code of 1898) is judicial in nature. As a judicial power, it has to be exercised for valid reasons keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before the Court. Normally the Court would, following the discharge or acquittal of the accused, restore the property to the person from whose custody it was taken. A departure from this rule of practice is not lightly made when there is no dispute or doubt that the property which was seized from the custody of the accused belongs to him. These observations in the decision of this Court in Madhavan [N. Madhavan Vs. State of Kerala (1979) 4 SCC 1] clearly indicate that ordinarily the person from whom the property was seized would be entitled to an order under Section 452, when there is no dispute or doubt that the property belongs to him. It is only when the property belongs to the person from whom it was seized that such an order can be passed.” Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the opposite party No.2 had faced trial and he has been acquitted as there was no evidence against him to suggest that he has conspired with main accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao, who laundered the embezzled amount nor there was any evidence to the effect that part of the embezzled amount was transferred in his account by R. Rama Koteshwar Rao. It was further submitted that learned Sessions Court has rightly directed for release of the aforesaid amount in favour of opposite party No.2. -4- 10. It is true that the opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Singh @ J. P. Singh had faced trial in S.T. No.201 of 1999 alongwith main accused R. Rama Koteshwar Rao for offences under Sections 409/ 420 /467/ 468/ 472 of the Indian Penal Code for laundering the embezzled amount of R. Rama Koteshwar Rao by purchasing shares certificate from different brokerage firms. However, the learned Trial Court did not find any evidence against the opposite party No.2 for offences he was charged with. Accordingly, he was acquitted. 11. From the evidence as pointed out by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is evident that some money was deposited in the account of the petitioner with Indian Bank, Jamshedpur. One of the witness has also stated that opposite party No.2 had invested about Rs.2 crores within a year for purchasing shares certificate through his brokerage firm. However, the amount of Rs.10,60,737.95 was ordered to be transferred to the petitioner by learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur from account of opposite party No.2 in Canara Bank, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur as transpires from the impugned order dated 29.04.2010. 12. Both the parties have staked their claim over Rs.10,60,737.95. However, it will be appropriate and proper that such claim be agitated before a competent Civil Court. 13. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall file a suit before competent civil court within a month. 14. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 submitted that his money is blocked since year 1999 causing much hardship. It was further submitted that the final disposal of the civil suit shall take much time and as such, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,60,737.95 be released to the opposite party No.2, who shall execute an indemnity bond to the effect that if the suit is decided against him, he will re-pay the amount as will be directed by the competent civil court. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner Indian Bank, Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur is directed to release Rs.10,60,737.95 -5- in favour of the opposite party No.2 after he executes an indemnity bond to the effect as submitted. 16. With this direction, this criminal revision application is
Decision
disposed of. 17. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)