HEMANTA KUMAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the accused in Balliguda P.S. Case No.89 (3) of 2009 corresponding to G.R.Case No.253 of 2009 now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda and has prayed to set aside the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda in G.R.Case No.253 of 2009 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. against the petitioner and issuing process to him.

(2.) Facts reveal that the petitioner was working as Branch Post Master to Mahasinghi Branch Post Office, Balliguda. On 8.11.2009, one Satya Narayan Mishra, Inspector of Post Office, Balliguda Sub-Division, Balliguda lodged an information before the I.I.C., Balliguda Police Station alleging that when the petitioner was working as Branch Post Master of Mahasinghi Branch Office has committed the offence of misappropriation of detailed in the F.I.R., with regard to various account holders in the said Branch Post Office i.e. recurring deposit account of one Sudarsan Patra, one Dhan Singh Mallick, one Smt.Aaran Kothadalai, one Namita Patra and one Surasingh Kothadalai. The petitioner was alleged to have committed irregularities by making wrong entries in their accounts thereby misappropriating amounts of Rs.1100/-, Rs.1826/-, Rs.6000/- and Rs.1600/- respectively from the aforesaid accounts. The F.I.R. also discloses that the informant Shri Mishra, who was the Inspector of Post Office, Balliguda Sub-Division, stated that all the connected records relevant to the allegations are with the Superintendent Post Office, Phulbani Division for departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The informant also requested to call for those records and seize the same from the Superintendent Post Office.

(3.) On the above allegations, after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner by the Investigating Officer for commission of the alleged offence under Section 409 I.P.C. upon which the order taking cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner has been passed, which is impugned in this application. Affidavits have been annexed to the Crl. Misc.Case Petition and all the five account holders from whose accounts, it is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated the amounts as stated above, in those affidavits, have stated that they have no grievance against the petitioner and the petitioner has never misappropriated any amount from their accounts, which they deposited. The case diary was called for during hearing of this petition, which has been produced by the learned counsel for the State. It appears from the case diary that except that audit report, no other documents have been seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case and the entire allegation in the F.I.R. is based on the audit report. The learned counsel for the State also on instruction, submitted that no other documents or materials have been seized during the course of investigation.