BRAHMESHWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revisions -Criminal Revision No. 1318 of 1983 filed by the Principal of Merchant Inter College, Chitbaragaon, Ballia and Criminal Revision No.2091 of 1983 filed by Zaheer, the Manager of the Institution. The two revisions have been preferred against the order of Sri B.B. Singh, II AddI. Munsif Magistrate, Ballia framing charge against the revisionist under Sections 409, 420,467,201 and 120 I.P.C. The counsel for the revisionists concluded their arguments yesterday. Today the State counsel had to reply and submitted his reply. It has been urged that actually there are no materials for framing any charge against the two revisionists. The order of the Magistrate which is quite a detailed one has also been annexed and the Magistrate has given his reasons for framing charge. I have also perused the Audit Report and the other materials as contained in the case diary which is available. Learned counsel for the revisionist Mohammad Zaheer relied upon the case of J.S. Surangbhai V. State of Gujarat. I may at the very outset observe that sufficient amount withdrawn as different grants or different accounts like Provident Fund, Boys Fund so on so forth have been embezzled. What is urged is that the revisionists specific acts prima facie establishing embezzlement on their individual part should be proved. It is noteworthy that in the present case averments of conspiracy between the revisionists and the cashier and others are there and when that is the position unless the whole trial concludes, all documents are examined, witnesses are cross-examined it is not possible to say that there was no conspiracy and the present revisionists have no hand and no collusion with the cashier and others. In the Supreme Court case of J.S. Surangbhai (supra) itself what has been laid down is when charge of conspiracy fails then role of each individual concerning alleged embezzlement has to be proved, establishing the ingredients against them individually. At this stage it cannot be said that the charge of conspiracy fails. If charge of conspiracy is established the position would be different. At the stage of charge one has simply see the broad aspects and any close and critical scrutiny is not possible. From the materials available I find that prima facie materials for framing charge exist and the rest is matter of trial. In fact, if I proceed to discuss all such evidence it may rather handicap and prejudice the revisionists so I may not go into details. This Court will also not sit to discharge the function of the trial court. I am to simply satisfy whether prima facie some materials exist for framing a charge. When I find it to be the case no interference will be made in revision and both the revisions are therefore rejected. Revision dismissed.