TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 25,000/- on 11.4.1989, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. A criminal case was also initiated under Section 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 ₹ 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaded by P.O. that Sh. Jasbir Singh, C.S.E. has fraudulently withdrawn ₹ 25000/- on 11.4.89 through withdrawal form by forging the signature of a depositor Sh.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 ₹ 25000/- bearing S.B. A/c No. 7069. Interestingly, Respondent Bank also filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on Respondent Bank. In Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ors. [JT 2006 (4) SC 404], it was opined: It is, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be paid. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Uday Narain Pandey [(2006) 1 SCC 479]. In that case, this Court was dealing with a power of the Industrial Courts under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therein, as the establishment was closed, the question of reinstatement of the workman did not arise. Still then, 25% back wages were directed to be paid as also the compensation payable in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The judgments of both the Civil Court and the Criminal Court established that the appellant was treated very unfairly and unreasonably. For all intent and purport, a criminal case was foisted upon him. A confession, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
