CHATAR SINGH Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RANIKHET, DISTRICT ALMORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to quash the charge sheet dated 09.10.2004 along with entire proceedings of criminal case no. 643 of 2004 titled as 'State Vs. Bhim Singh and another'. It is pertinent to mention here that the trial in the matter is yet to be proceeded against petitioner Chatar Singh and co -accused Bhim Singh for the offence under Section 406, 409, 420 IPC. The facts in brief, sans the unnecessary details as disclosed from the FIR are that petitioner was a Junior Engineer posted in Electricity Distribution Division, Ranikhet at Maasi District Almora. On 28.11.1997, a contract was executed between the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division and co -accused Bhim Singh, who happened to be a Contractor, for drawing electricity lines and doing other necessary work. In pursuance of that contract under the direction of Executive Engineer, petitioner handed over a lot of items for completion of work on 22.08 -1998 to the contractor. Later on, when superior officers inspected the work at the spot, then most of the items, which Had been supplied by petitioner to the contractor, were not found and the work was also not completed, so the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to lodge an FIR against the contractor but he did not follow his directions. Besides, he was instrumental in approving the payment to the contractor for more work, which was actually done at the spot. Electricity items worth Rs. 3,29,793/ - were found missing from the spot, so the Department had to spend Rs. 3,75,960/ - more for completion of the desired work by engaging some other contractor. First Information Report was lodged against petitioner on 30.07.2012 for misappropriating the property of Government in connivance with the contractor afore -named. The matter was investigated, which resulted into submission of charge sheet on dated 09.10.2004, as stated above.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that contractor got received as many as 30 items from the petitioner on 22.08.1998 for electrification work and when he did not do the desired work, petitioner issued several notices to him which are annexure nos. 3, 4 and 5 to the petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the pros and cons of case and going through the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that prima faciely there is ample evidence against the petitioner and co -accused Bhim Singh for launching prosecution against them for the offences where for charge sheet has been submitted and there is no abuse of process of law in doing so. The petition is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to inform the court below.