JANAMITRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dtd. 26/6/2014 passed in C.T. Case No. 25 of 2014 by the learned J.M.F.C.-cum-Nyayadhikari, Grama Nyayalaya, Komna, whereby, cognizance of offence under Sec. 409 read with 34 of the I.P.C and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act was taken against him despite the fact that no case of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust has been established.

(2.) As per the F.I.R dtd. 20/4/2014 lodged by the District Manager, OSCSC Limited, Nuapada, on the basis of an agreement, the petitioner being the Custom Miller received paddy stocks procured from the farmers for milling and was to supply resultant FAQ standard rice to the Corporation for KMS 2012-13, which was valid up to 30/9/2013 in respect of Bargarh A/c extended till 31/3/2014 and rice against the total paddy received within the period of contract and up to 30/9/2013, however, delivered rice against the total due in respect of Bargarh A/c relating to KMS 2012-13 and no delivery vis-'-vis Nuapada for KMS 2013-14 till 22/4/2014 leaving balance of outstanding Q 10824.181 and Q 12232.19 respectively. It is further alleged that due to non-delivery of balance rice within the period of agreement, the mill was physically verified by the CSO Nuapada and shortage of Q15819 of paddy was detected in the godown which is equivalent to custom milled rice of Q 10824.81 and as a result, the misappropriated rice amounted to Rs.5.10 crores, thereby, the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust. Based on the agreement, since the petitioner is the Custom Miller failed to honour the obligation and due to shortage detected during physical verification, with the misappropriation alleged, the report was lodged. After investigation was concluded, the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner under the alleged offences and the learned court below by order dtd. 26/6/2014 vide Annexure-2 passed the impugned order of cognizance dtd. 26/6/2014.

(3.) Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party.