Supreme Court Quashes Summons Against Bank Clerk in Embezzlement Case: Meenu Prakash Bhantu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 16, 2023
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed the question of whether a bank clerk could be summoned as an additional accused in a case of fraudulent withdrawal based solely on the fact that they provided a dim or misprinted statement of account. The case, Meenu Prakash Bhantu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., involved allegations of embezzlement from a bank account. The court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal, ultimately quashed the summons against the appellant, a bank clerk, finding insufficient evidence to implicate him in the fraudulent activity.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on June 20, 2014, by the second respondent, alleging that ₹55,20,000 had been embezzled from his bank account. The complainant stated that unauthorized withdrawals had occurred, a new cheque book was issued without his request and was not delivered to him, and SMS alerts for transactions had suddenly stopped. Initially, the FIR did not name any accused.

During the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against two bank employees, Jagpal Singh and Ajeet Kumar Sharma. The complainant, during his testimony, reiterated his allegations, stating that the fraud was committed in connivance with bank and post office employees. However, he also admitted that the bank had returned the embezzled amount.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the complainant’s statement, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon the appellant, along with other bank and post office employees, as additional accused. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate initially rejected this application on May 6, 2017, citing a lack of sufficient material.

The Sessions Judge, however, allowed the revision petition against this order on July 4, 2017, and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Subsequently, on August 29, 2017, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed the summoning of the appellant and others. The appellant then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed the application under Section 482 of the CrPC, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily considered the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense during an inquiry or trial.

Section 319 of the CrPC states:
“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”

The Court also referred to the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which clarified the scope and limitations of Section 319 of the CrPC.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant was a Miscellaneous Clerk at the State Bank of India, Gonda Branch, and not responsible for fraudulent withdrawals.
• The only allegation against the appellant was that he supplied a statement of account that was either illegible or misprinted.
• This act did not establish his involvement in the crime.
• The High Court failed to appreciate the facts and passed a general order.
• The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order was non-speaking and merely referred to the Sessions Judge’s order.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• There was a fraudulent withdrawal of ₹55,20,000.
• The appellant’s role was clearly established.
• The complainant was not given a satisfactory reply when he enquired about the issuance of a new cheque book.
• The statement of account provided by the appellant was illegible or misprinted, preventing the complainant from understanding the transactions.
• The appellant, being responsible for providing account copies, was equally responsible for the fraud.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the appellant could be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the available evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]* to emphasize that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary and should be used sparingly. The Court used this authority to underscore that the evidence required to summon an additional accused must be more than a prima facie case, and that there was no such evidence in the present case against the appellant. The Court further relied on Sagar vs. State of U.P . & Anr. [(2022) 6 SCC 389] to reiterate the caution that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent withdrawal. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s role as a clerk who provided a dim or misprinted statement of account was insufficient to establish his involvement in the crime. The Court also highlighted that the appellant was not authorized to approve withdrawals or deal with the complainant’s account.

The Court’s reasoning was also guided by the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*, which stated that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, as interpreted in Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*.

The Court considered the argument that the appellant was responsible for providing the account statement and that the illegible/misprinted statement hindered the complainant’s ability to understand the transactions. However, the court rejected this argument stating that the appellant’s responsibility did not extend to the fraudulent activity.

The final decision was reached after considering the facts, the legal provisions, and the precedents set by previous cases. The Court concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the appellant’s involvement in the fraudulent withdrawal, and therefore, the summons against him was not justified.

The Court stated:

• “If the case in hand is examined on the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in our opinion, no case is made out against the appellant at this stage for his summoning as an additional accused merely because he once had supplied a copy of the statement of account to the complainant which was either dim or mis-printed.”
• “Based on this material, opinion cannot be formed that he was in connivance with the accused who allegedly indulged in cheating the complainant by fraudulent withdrawal from his account.”
• “He is not authorized either to approve withdrawal or to deal with the account of the complainant.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Key Takeaways

• A bank employee cannot be summoned as an additional accused in a fraud case merely for providing a dim or misprinted statement of account.
• The power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence.
• The court emphasized that the evidence required to summon an additional accused must be more than a prima facie case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the application for summoning the appellant as an additional accused.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a bank employee cannot be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC merely for providing a dim or misprinted statement of account. This judgment reinforces the principle that the power to summon additional accused must be exercised judiciously and only when there is sufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the crime. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather this case reiterates the position of law as laid down in Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Meenu Prakash Bhantu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. clarifies that a bank employee cannot be summoned as an additional accused in a fraud case based solely on the fact that they provided a dim or misprinted statement of account. The Court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 of the CrPC. This judgment serves as a reminder that the power to summon additional accused must be exercised judiciously and with due consideration of the available evidence.