Crl.Petn./63/2017 of SHYAMAL SAHA Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA on 21 December 2017

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURAAGARTALA

Cri Petn. No 62 of ZUl7

Sri Shyamal Saha, son of Sri Ranjit Kumar Saha, resident of Rajghat, P.S. & P.O. Melaghar, District: Sipahijala, Pin:799115

………Petitioner

- V E R S U S -

The State of Tripura,

represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura

…..Respondent

REFORETHE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE 8. TALAPATRA

For the petitioner

: Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Advocate : Mr. R. C. Debnath, Addl. P.P. : 21.12.2017 : NO

For the respondents

Date of judgment and order

Whether fit for reporting

Judgment andUrder (Ural)

Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counselappearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rk. C. Debnath, learnedAddl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State, #$%This 1s a petition under Section-482 of the Cr. P.C. forquashing the charge sheet filed in Melaghar P.S. Case No.9016/MLG/005 dated 11.01.2016 under Sections 468/471/420 ofIPC and later on registered as PRC (WP) 54 of 2017 in the Court:of the Judicial Magistrate, 1[st]Class, Court No. 2, Sonamura, West)quashing the charge sheet filed in Melaghar P.S. Case No.9016/MLG/005 dated 11.01.2016 under Sections 468/471/420 ofIPC and later on registered as PRC (WP) 54 of 2017 in the Court:of the Judicial Magistrate, 1[st]Class, Court No. 2, Sonamura, West)

‘Tripura. ‘his petition 1s concerned with the petitioner alone, notwith the other co-accused.

[3|Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has submitted that allegations are related to a loantransaction with the United Bank of India by the petitioner. Theallegations made in the written ejahar in brief are that at the timewhen the petitioner obtained the loan he submitted a certilicatepurportedly from a Chartered Accountant Firm namely M/S S.Guha and Associates under signature of the five CharteredAccountants. [The manager, UBI, Melaghar Branch relying on thatcertificate accorded the loan to the petitioner. but later on duringone internal audit, one of the bank auditors suspected that thecertificate issued by M/S 8S. Guha and Associates, CharteredAccountants might not be genuine and they embarked on an|inquiry. It was informed by the said firm that the said certificatewas a forged one and was never issued by them.

[ 4:On such discovery, the written ejahar was filed andconsequently, the sald police station case was registered and investigated into. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet[the final police report] was filed against the petitioner and oneUttam Saha under Section 468/471/420 of the IPC. By means ofthis petition, the said charge sheet has been challenged.

[5|Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted thatthe petitioner had obtained the certificate bona fide from thechartered accountant firm through one Uttam Saha, the co-accused. Mr. Khar Bhowmik, learned counsel has clarified that hissubmissions are mere response on record. This Court may nottreat these as admission for any purpose. But when it was foundforged, the petitioner was also surprised. He was contemplating tofile one complaint in the Melaghar police station, but theMelaghar police station despite having received the complaint, didnot register any specific case against the co-accused.

[6|Mr. 8S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner has submitted that if the scrutiny 1s made into thecharge sheet it would be abundantly clear to this Court that theco-accused had been in the business oft take certificates etc. Thepetitioner himself, according to Mr. har Bhowmik, learnedcounsel, is the victim of the culpable act of the co-accused and assuch, he cannot be charged with the criminal lability when he has_produced the record bona fide and he has been paying theinstalments regularly against the loan. For his action, nodetriment has been suftered the said bank..

[7|Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has submitted that at this stage, this Court may alsolook into the defence materials for coming to a conclusion whether the petitioner would be allowed to go through persecution of thetrial or not. In this respect, Mr. har Bhowmik, learned counsel has_placed his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Rajiv‘Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3SCC 330, where it has been observed that “whether the materialsrelied upon by the accused would rollout the assertion contained in thecharges leveled against the accused 1.e. the materials is sufficient rejectand overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint 1.e. thematerials in such as wouldpersuade the reasonable person to dismiss andcondemn the actual basis ofthe accusations asfalse.

[8|Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has further submitted that the petitioner does not haveany mens-rea 1n the transaction and that would emerge andmanifest 11 the materials produced with the police report areminutely examined.

[9|From the other side, Mr. R. C. Debnath, learnedAddl. P.P. appearing tor the respondent-State, in order to repealthe submission of Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel, hassubmitted that this is not the stage when this Court shall makesuch roving scrutiny of the evidence. Even the charge has not been.framed as yet against the accused person. Moreover, Section-47of IPC saddles a person with the criminal liability when he utilizes:a torged certificate. So tar the knowledge of forgery 1s concerned, the petitioner cannot perhaps deny such knowledge. Mere prootthat the ‘forged’ certificate was utilized to obtain some gain in his:favour 1s sufficient for conviction. [here are adequate materialsagainst the petitioner in this regard.

[10] |Be that as it may, this Court 1s of the view that thepetitioner will get the adequate chance to agitate all these pointsat the time when the charge would be tramed. But this 1s not thestage when, on the face of the materials, the entire prosecution:case can be discarded on discharging or exonerating thepetitioner.

Having observed thus, this petition stands dismissed.However, it 1s made clear that notwithstanding this dismissal, thepetitioner shall be at liberty to raise all relevant objections at thetime of framing of the charge. |

JUDGE

AGhosh