VIJAY KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three connected petitions under S.482, Cr. P.C. shall be disposed of by this judgement. Vijai Kumar Soni, Petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department at Gonda from 1974 to 1978. During the years 1976 to 1978 some constructions and repairs were made on Bahraich-Faizabad-Azamgarh Road and Colonelganj-Kukurbhukwa-Gonda Road. Brick ballasts, stone, ballasts and bricks were supplied by the Thekedars for the aforesaid purpose. These constructions and repairs were carried on under the supervisions of Vijai Kumar Soni. It seems that the complaints were made against him that he had misappropriated the material supplied and failed to account for them. The State Government, therefore, entrusted the matter to the Vigilance Department. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Department), Faizabad, entrusted the matter to a Vigilance Inspector for investigation. He found that Vijai Kumar Soni misappropriated 33.92 cubic metres of brick ballasts worth Rs. 1759/- supplied for Bahraich-Faizabad-Azamgarh Road and made fictitious entries in the Government records. He, therefore submitted charge-sheet on 20-4-1983. On this charge-sheet Special Judge, Gonda, took cognizance and summoned the petitioner About Colonelganj-Kukurbhukwa-Gonda Road the Vigilance Inspector found that Vijai Kumar Soni misappropriated 353.56 cubic metres stone ballasts worth Rs. 22,592.48 P., 2700 bricks worth Rs. 365/- and 1200 bricks worth Rs. 151.44 P. and made forged and factitious entries in the Government records. The Vigilance Inspector submitted on charge-sheet relating to misappropriation of 1200 bricks on 7-3-1983. It relates to the period of 1977-78. The other charge-sheet submitted on 6-5-1983 relates to misappropriation of stone ballasts and 2700 bricks for the year 1977. On these two charges also the learned Special Judge took cognizance and summoned Vijai Kumar Soni. He appeared in all the three cases. After his appearance of a date for framing charge had been fixed. Before framing of the charge he moved these three petitions under S.482, Cr. P.C. for quashing his prosecution.

(2.) The contention is that he did not commit any misappropriation or criminal breach of trust or forgery in public records and he has been falsely roped in the case at the instance of his superior officers and some others persons due to ill-will. It has also been pleaded by him that the charge-sheets submitted against him do not make out any case prima facie and as such the learned Special Judge has wrongly taken cognizance of the matter. In the rejoinder affidavit a new plea had been raised. It is that no first information report had been lodged and as such the vigilance Inspector could not make investigation against him.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Advocate. After having heard and considered the arguments advances I am of the opinion that these petitions have no substance and deserve dismissal.