2006 (10) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 409/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted in the criminal case. A purported confession which he had allegedly made was found to have been done under undue coercion. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed that even Rattan Singh did not make any complaint. The other officers who were said to be involved were not proceeded against. It was held: (i) A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was not standing to the credit of so called Rattan Singh on 11th April, 1989. (ii) The appellant was found to have been threatened by the officers. (iii) His complaints soon after his release from the hands of the bank officials had not been taken note of. (iv) An adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution witness Mukhtiar Si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ignature of a depositor Sh. Rattan Singh of S.B. A/c 7069 he received the payment himself from the cashier and to hide this fraudulent transaction, he tempered the record, torn off the relevant portion of SB log book, removed the ledger sheet of SB A/c 7069 and destroyed the withdrawal form dated 11.4.89 of Rs. 25000/- bearing S.B. A/c No. 7069." Interestingly, Respondent  Bank also filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The suit was decreed. On an appeal preferred thereagainst, the Addl. District Judge, Faridkot by a judgment and decree dated 3.3.2001, on analysis of the evidences brought on records, held that Respondent  Bank miserably failed to prove that the appellant has withdrawn the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, however, beyond any controversy that when a crucial finding like forgery is arrived at on an evidence which is nonets in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter." It was further observed: "It is also of some interest to note that the first respondent itself, in the civil suit filed by the firm relied upon a copy of the report of the enquiry officer. The first respondent, therefore, itself invited comments as regards the existence of sufficiency of evidence/acceptability thereof and, thus, it may not now be open to them to contend that the report of the enquiry officer was sacrosanct. We have referred to the fact of the matter in some detail as also the scope of judicial review only ....