The Court finds no prima facie evidence against the petitioners, highlighting their non-involvement due to their postings at the time of the alleged crime.
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against two bank officers implicated in a case of alleged fraudulent fund transfers. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha in the case of Braj Gopal Sandhibigraha v. State of Bihar. The petitioners, who were bank officers, faced charges under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to fraudulent activities at the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ara branch.
The case stemmed from allegations that on March 10, 2015, the then Branch Manager, in collusion with others, fraudulently transferred funds from the accounts of the complainant and his brother without their consent. The petitioners were not posted at the Ara branch during the time of the alleged transactions. Petitioner No. 1 was stationed in Rajkot and Petitioner No. 2 in Chapra, only assuming positions at the regional office in Patna and the concerned office months later.
Justice Jha emphasized the lack of specific allegations or evidence showing the petitioners' involvement in the transactions or any personal gain. Notably, Petitioner No. 1 had reported the financial irregularities to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) upon joining his post, which led to an independent investigation. This bona fide conduct was considered a relevant circumstance in determining the absence of a pre-existing conspiracy or dishonest participation.
The Court reiterated that a mere official designation could not establish criminal conspiracy or vicarious liability without foundational facts. The judgment underscored the necessity for concrete evidence indicating the precise role and active participation of the accused in the alleged crime.
The ruling aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, which requires unimpeachable material to prosecute bank officers under the IPC, dismissing automatic vicarious liability based on position alone. The decision to quash the proceedings was deemed necessary to prevent misuse of judicial process and uphold justice.
Bottom Line :
Criminal proceedings against bank officers cannot be sustained merely on the basis of their subsequent official designation when they were not posted at the concerned branch on the date of occurrence and no specific material shows entrustment, inducement, or conspiracy. Subsequent bona fide conduct of reporting irregularities to CBI is a relevant circumstance while examining prima facie criminal culpability.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, 120B; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Braj Gopal Sandhibigraha v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989371
