Bank fraud case: Supreme Court rules against summoning of appellant and others under Section 319 CrPC
[web_stories title=”false” excerpt=”false” author=”false” date=”false” archive_link=”true” archive_link_label=”https://lawyer-e-news.com/bank-fraud-summoning-appellant-section-319-crpc/” circle_size=”150″ sharp_corners=”false” image_alignment=”left” number_of_columns=”1″ number_of_stories=”5″ order=”DESC” orderby=”post_title” view=”circles” /]On dated 16th March 2023, Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.) has observed that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and should only be exercised sparingly in cases where there is strong and cogent evidence against a person from the evidence laid before the court. The test that has to be applied is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Facts
The case involves a complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2, who alleged that Rs. 55,20,000 were embezzled from his bank account through unauthorized withdrawals and issuance of a new cheque book without his request. Charge sheet was filed against two individuals and during the trial, the complainant stated that the cheating was done in connivance with the bank and post office employees. The prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.PC to summon the appellant, accountant, bank manager, and post master, which was initially rejected but allowed upon revision. The appellant challenged the order in the High Court, which dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application without proper reasoning. The case is now before the Court.
Contentions
The appellant’s learned counsel argued that the appellant cannot be held responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal from the complainant’s account as he was only a Miscellaneous Clerk in State Bank of India and had merely supplied a printout of the statement of the account. The High Court had failed to appreciate the contentions and had passed a general order without discussing the facts of the case. The order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also non-speaking and merely referred to the Sessions Judge’s order. The counsel relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 55,20,000 from the complainant’s account, and the appellant’s role was clearly established. The bank had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation when the complainant approached them regarding the issuance of a cheque book. The statement of account provided by the appellant was either illegible or had misprinting, and the complainant could not make out the transactions from his account. Therefore, the appellant, being the person responsible for supplying the account copies, was equally responsible for the fraud.
Observed and Held
The Supreme Court has observed that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and should only be exercised sparingly in cases where there is strong and cogent evidence against a person from the evidence laid before the court. The test that has to be applied is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Supreme court has held that the appellant cannot be summoned as an additional accused based on the material placed on record, as there is no evidence to suggest that he was in connivance with the accused who allegedly indulged in cheating the complainant by fraudulent withdrawal from his account.
MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
