The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance for misappropriation under IPC sections 409/34. The court found the petitioner liable for defalcation based on an audit report and insufficient explanations over several years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19627 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -29 Year- 2011 Thana -GOVINDPUR District- NAWADA
======================================================
Ravindra Yadav son of Sri Prabhu Yadav Resident of Village- Shikharpur, P.S- Govindpur, Distt- Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 20-06-2017 Heard both sides.
2 . The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated
03.09.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in G.R.No.1253 of 2011 arising out of Govindpur P.S.Case No.29 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against this petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 409/34 of the IPC.
3 . The facts in brief is that a police case vide Govindpur P.S.Case No.29 of 2011 was registered on the basis of written report of Block Development Officer, Govindpur wherein it has been alleged that in the year 1994-95 under Guaranted Rojgar Scheme the petitioner and few others were given cash amount as per detailed in written report for preparation of bricks.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19627 of 2014 (2) dt.20-06-2017
2/3
The petitioner was given an amount of Rs.27,500/- but he did not deposit the same in the office in spite of repeated direction which shows that the accused persons have defalcated and misappropriated the government money.
4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was appointed agent for preparation of two lacks bricks vide office order no.29/94-95 issued by Block Development Officer, Govindpur at the rate of 40500 per lacks. The petitioner prepared the bricks but 20,000/- bricks could not prepared and 30,000 bricks were destroyed for which an information was given to the Block Development Officer, Govindpur. In spite of repeated request to the BDO and District Magistrate, no step was taken for disposal of ready bricks and after lapse of 16 years the BDO has given notice only to harass the petitioner. The order taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and is fit to be quashed.
5 . The learned APP opposed the submissions. He submits that this petitioner and other co-accused admittedly took amount from the office of Block Development Office, Govindpur and misappropriated the same. He was duty bound to deposit the said amount in compliance of said notice issued by the office.
6 . On perusal of documents on record, I find that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19627 of 2014 (2) dt.20-06-2017
3/3
petitioner was ordered to manufacture two lacks bricks for which he had taken money to the tune of Rs.27,500/- He misappropriated the said amount as in spite of passing over several years he neither deposited the said amount nor submitted any satisfactory explanation in pursuance of notice issued by office. The present case was lodged on the basis of audit report whereunder he was found liable to deposit the said amount.
7. In view of discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the present miscellaneous application, which is accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
B.Kr./-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appl. for quashing of the order taking cognizance for misappropriation of funds under S. 409/34 IPC is meritorious.
Whether the petitioner benefited from repeated delays and lack of steps to dispose of surplus bricks over 16 years to merit quashing.
Whether the audited finding that the petitioner misappropriated funds and failed to submit satisfactory explanation warrants dismissal of the application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Yadav
The State of Bihar
Block Development officer, Govindpur, Nawada
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
