The Patna High Court has held that subsequent occupation of a senior position in a bank cannot, by itself, establish criminal conspiracy or participation in an earlier transaction, particularly where the accused was not posted at the concerned branch when the alleged offence took place.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 14.02.2017, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 10.03.2015, the then Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ara, fraudulently obtained blank cheques from the complainant and, in connivance with other accused persons, transferred approximately ₹58 lakh from the complainant's and his brother's accounts.

The petitioners contended that they had been implicated merely because of the positions they subsequently held in the Bank. Petitioner No.1 was posted at Rajkot on the date of the alleged transactions and joined the Regional Office, Patna only on 07.05.2015, while Petitioner No.2 was posted at Chapra and joined subsequently on 17.08.2015.

The Court noted that neither petitioner was posted at the Ara Branch when the alleged transactions took place. It further found no specific allegation that either petitioner was present at the branch, participated in preparation or issuance of the cheques, authorised the disputed transfers, received any part of the alleged amount or derived any personal benefit. On the allegation of conspiracy, the Court held:

“The allegation of conspiracy also cannot be sustained merely by referring to the official designation subsequently held by the petitioners…The fact that a person subsequently occupies an office connected with the institution in which the alleged transaction had earlier taken place, by itself, cannot furnish the necessary foundation for such an inference.”

The Court also considered the subsequent conduct of Petitioner No.1, who, after being informed of the financial irregularities detected in audit, himself took steps to lodge a case with the CBI, resulting in registration of a case on 26.05.2015.

The Bench observed that this was a relevant circumstance when examining whether the allegation of dishonest participation or conspiracy was prima facie sustainable. It clarified, however, that subsequent conduct would not by itself exonerate an accused in every case.

The Court emphasised:

“The present case, the principle assumes greater significance because the petitioners were not even posted at the concerned Branch on the date of the alleged transaction. Their subsequent designation cannot retrospectively create participation in an occurrence which, on the prosecution's own showing, had already taken place.”

It also noted that the investigation had specifically examined the role of the petitioners, but the subsequent report did not furnish specific material establishing their involvement.

The Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings could not be justified merely because the petitioners' names appeared in the charge-sheet. Finding no foundational material establishing the petitioners' participation in the alleged offences, the Court quashed the cognizance order and all consequential proceedings against them.

Title: Braj Gopal Sandhibigraha and Anr v. State of Bihar and Anr

Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No.37277 of 2017

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Nishi Nath Ojha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP

For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Rahul Nath, Adv.