RAMESH KUMAR CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 202200000792016 whereby the Revisional Court, while reversing the order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, in Criminal Case No. 279/2002, has directed for impleadment of the Petitioner as an accused by allowing the application filed by respondent No.2/accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.)

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was performing his duty as the Manager of Samiti known as Adimjati Sewa Sahakari Samiti while, Jyotish Kumar Mahant, respondent No.2 herein, as the Salesman of the said Cooperative Society, who has misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,18,750/- (Rupees two lakhs eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty only) of the said Samiti. A first information report was, therefore, registered against him on 09.06.2001 on the basis of complaint lodged by one N.H.Sao in the Police Station, Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Based upon it, a crime has been registered by the concerned Police Station against respondent No.2 in connection with Crime No.64/2001 for an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). Chargesheet was filed thereafter against him before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda by the Investigating Officer after recording evidence of the witnesses under the offence mentioned herein above.

(3.) During trial, an application was made by respondent No.2 under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the Petitioner as his name was also mentioned as one of the co-accused in the audit report as well as the report lodged by Branch Manager of the Samiti, Gharghoda. The said application was, however, rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 09.10.2002 observing, inter alia, that no materials are available on record so as to hold the Petitioner's involvement and observed further that a proceeding would be initiated against him under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. if his involvement is found through prosecution witnesses. The said order is affirmed further by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 27.02.2003 in a Criminal Revision No.288/02 preferred by respondent No.2.