Allowed

Krishna Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The Court quashed the lower court's order for passing a perverse finding and remitted the matter for fresh consideration based on FIR allegations and investigation evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside, the Cr. Revision is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the court below to pass an order afresh.

Krishna Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 41 of 2022 Krishna Prasad Singh … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …Opp. Party ---------

¶3

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. ---------

¶5

Order No. 08/ dated 23.08.2023

¶6

This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau in G.R.No.64 of 2014, arising out of Sadar (T) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2014, registered under Sections 409 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge has been rejected.

¶7

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner retired on 28.02.2013 as Assistant Teacher cum Incharge Headmaster Girls Middle School, Singra Khurd, Sadar Medininagar. Prior to the date of retirement, he disclosed himself as retired employee and submitted an application for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount duly forwarded by Drawing and Disbursing Officer cum Head Master, Singra Khurd in which No Dues Certificate was also included. In view of No Dues Certificate, the D.E.O. recommended for and accordingly District Provident Office vide its bill sent the amount to the District Provident Fund Office, Palamau. It is further stated that on 04.09.2013, the D.S.E., Palamau received the information

¶8

¶9

that the petitioner by suppressing the fact and in connivance with other, is going to withdraw the amount of G.P.F. amounting to Rs.14,76,016/-. D.S.E., Palamau informed that the petitioner had himself prepared the statement and by mischief got his signature. It is further alleged that after due enquiry, Rs. 3,77,123/- was recovered from the petitioner towards GPF.

¶10

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it was a case of excess payment and no alleged offence of embezzlement or defalcation was committed by the petitioner.

¶11

It is also submitted that there is no entrustment of any amount so as to make defalcation of the same rather the petitioner has applied for his post-retirement benefits and if there was any wrong in the application, it was the duty of the Department concerned to look whether the same is in accordance with the Rules or the record as well.

¶12

It is also further submitted that the D.C. has also written letter to the Public Prosecutor, Civil Court, Palamau in regard to withdrawal of G.R. Case No. 64 of 2014 against retired teacher Krishna Prasad Singh and in the letter itself it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 3,82,901/- was made excess payment. As such it was not a case of defalcation and no manipulation was made by him in the record so as to screen himself by removing any evidence against him.

¶13

¶14

It is also further submitted that the impugned order passed by the court-below is based on perverse finding. The discharge application of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that the cognizance had been taken against the petitioner for the offence alleged. As such the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The court-below has not applied its judicial mind in passing the impugned order.

¶15

The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that in the F.I.R. itself the allegations are made against the petitioner in regard to directing his officials to prepare the bill and on the basis of the wrong bill the excess payment was taken by the petitioner.

¶16

It is also further submitted that there is allegations in regard to manipulation in the record at the behest of petitioner. From the F.I.R. allegations and the evidence collected by the I.O. the offence alleged against the petitioner is made out and contended that the impugned order passed by the court-below bears no illegality.

¶17

From the very allegations made in the F.I.R., the petitioner Krishna Prasad Singh the Assistant Teacher was to retire and before his retirement he has applied for payment of his post retiremental benefits. All the post-retiremental benefits were to be paid by the Department concerned. From the perusal of the F.I.R. itself though the allegations are made in regard to the defalcation made by the petitioner by making any manipulation

¶18

¶19

in the record by directing his subordinate officials, the same is to be considered in the light of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation.

¶20

It is also the settled law that while framing the charge or disposing of the application for discharge application, trial court has to go through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. during the investigation. If the allegations made in the F.I.R. are supported with the evidence collected by the I.O, accordingly the discharge application is to be disposed of.

¶21

The learned trial court has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner without applying any judicial mind as to allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the I.O. rather dismissed the application on this ground that the same was not maintainable in view of cognizance order. This finding recorded by the court-below is perverse and the impugned order passed by the court-below needs interference.

¶22

Accordingly this Cr. Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

¶23

The matter is remitted back to the court-below and the court-below is directed to pass order afresh on the discharge application taking into account the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. during the investigation.

¶24

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶25

P.K.S.

Krishna Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Alias Manesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinchu Tudu Alias Tudu Alias Paya Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajrun Khatoon Alias Ajrun Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Kant Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand