MANORANJAN DASversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

                                MANORANJAN DAS                                     A
                                         v.
                               STATE OF JHARKHAND

                                  APRIL 21, 2004

                [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]                       B

           Penal Code, 1860:
            Ss. 420//09-Abetting offence of cheating-An account-holder
      introducing a person to bank for opening an account-The person so C
      introduced opening a current account with the bank and withdrawing certain
      amount from the bank by presenting fake bank drafts-Prosecution of
      introducer-Conviction and sentence by trial court u/s 420--Appellate court
      converting the conviction into one u/s 4201109-Held, trial court as well as
      the appellate court committed serious error in finding the introducer guilty D
      of offence u/s 4201109-He had introduced the said person to tlie bank only
      for opening an account and that by itself does not spell out any fraud or
      cheating-Bank passed the cheque at a time when the new account-holder
      had no sufficient money in his credit, and acted on the bogus drafts given
      by him for which the introducer who had introduced him to bank months
      back cannot be made liable for abetting offence of cheating-There is nothing E
      on record to show that the introducer was in any way related to the fraud
      committe4 by the new account-holder on the bank-Evidence of witnesses
       also does not show any complicity by the introducer in committing any act
       of cheating-Judgments of courts below set aside and introducer acquitted
       of charge ulss. 4201109-Bank!Banking-Fraud committed by account-
      holder-Liability of introducer.                                              F
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 650
--t   of 1998.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.96 of the Patna High Court
      in Crl. Revision No. 25/90(R).
           Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellant.
                                                                                   G
           Krishnanand Pandeya and Gautam Prasad for the Respondent.
           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
           The appellant herein was tried for offences punishable under Sections
                                         601                                       H
    602                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 419/420/468/471 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur,
    Singhbhum. He was found guilty by the Magistrate for the offence punishable
    under Section 420 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
    period of three years. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court
    challenging his conviction and sentence. The appellate Court converted the
B   conviction of the appellant from Section 420 IPC to a conviction under
    Sections 420/l 09 IPC, however the sentence was. maintained and appellant
    filed a revision before the High Court, though his revision petition was
    dismissed, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period of six •
    months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
           The appellant was a businessman in Jamshedpur. On 26-5-1972, one
C   Loknath Acharya wanted to ?pen a current account with the Central Bank at
    Jamshedpur. The appellant being holder of a current account in the same
    bank, Loknath Acharya sought assistance of appellant for introduction to the
    said bank. Appellant is said to have signed a form by which he purported to
    have introduced Loknath Acharya to the B11nk. Loknath Acharya continued
D   to operate his current account and on 30.10.1972. He presented three demand
    drafts, one for Rs. 32,100, second for Rs. 78,600 and another for Rs. 90,300.
    After the presentation of these demand drafts the said Loknath Acharya by
    a self cheque withdrew Rs. 27,000. Later, he presented another self cheque for
    Rs. 1,40,000 to be withdrawn from the Bank. Though the cheque was passed,
    the Manager smelt a rat and directed the officer incharge of the Current
E   Deposit Account to verify the drafts. The accountant incharge found certain
    irregularities and he suspected the genuineness of the drafts. The Manager
    stopped the payment of cheque of Rs. 1,40,000 and sent a telegram to the
    Srinagar branch of this Bank wherefrom these drafts were issued. Reply was
    received from the Srinagar branch that no such drafts were ever issued. The
F   Manager searched for Loknath Acharya and it seems that by the time he
    disappeared. The Manager filed a complaint before the police station alleging
    that Loknath Acharya and the appellant who introduced him to the Bank for
    starti!lg the current account and also one M.B. Chowdhury, a bank employee
    as parties to a fraud and cheating and it was alleged that money was illegally
    withdrawn form the Bank. On the basis of the complaint the police registered
G   a case under Section 420 IPC and other allied offences against theses three
    persons. Loknath Acharya could not be apprehended and remained as
    absconding and appellant and M.B. Chowdhury faced the criminal trial.
          On behalf of the prosecution three witnesses were examined, PW-1 was
    the Manager of the Bank, PW-2 was accountant of the Central Bank at the
H   relevant time and PW-3 is another regional Manager of the Central Bank. The
                 MANORANJAN DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                       603

investigation officer was not examined. A defence witness was also examined        A
at the instance of the co-accused M.B. Chowdhury who was acquitted by the
appellate court.
         We heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel for the
state.
       The counsel for the appellant contended before us that there is B
absolutely no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the present
appellant committed any offence punishable under law. It is argued that the
appellant had introduced Loknath Acharya to start· current account in the
Bank and there is no evidence to show that he had at any point of time acted
in collusion with Loknath Acharya to commit any fraud. It was also submitted C
that introduction of the appellant in connection with Loknath Acharya to the
Bank was on 26.5.72 and the cheque for Rs. 27,000 was withdrawn by Loknath
Acharya only in the month of October, 1972 and there is no evidence to show
that the appellant had any business connection or confusion with Loknath
Acharya. We perused the evidence produced by the prosecution and there
is nothing on record to show that appellant was in any way related to the D
fraud committed by Loknath Acharya on the Bank. The prosecution did not
even produce the form in which appellant had signed for introducing Loknath
Acharya for starting a current account with the Bank. The evidence of three
witnesses also does not show any complicity by the appellant in committing
any act of cheating. The appellant had introduced Loknath Acharya to the E
Bank only for opening an account and that by itself does not spell out any
fraud or cheating.
      There is no evidence to show that the present appellant instigated
Loknath Acharya to present bogus drafts before the complainant Bank. It is
also not correct to say that appellant was in anyway responsible for the loss
sustained by the bank. When. the bank passed the cheque for Rs. 27,000 at          F
a time when the account holder Loknath Acharya had no sufficient money in
his credit. They acted on the bogus drafts given by him for which the
appellant who had introduced the account holder about six months back
cannot be made liable for commission of offence of abetting office of cheating.
      The trial court as well as the appellate court committed serious error in    G
finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 420/109 IPC. We set
aside the judgment of the trial court, Sessions Court and the judgment of the
High Court and acquit the appellant of the charge of Sections 420/109 IPC.
The bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed.

RP.                                                             Appeal allowed.    H