JOGENDRA MAHANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar dated 5-1-1982 by which order the petitioner was charged for an offence under S.477-A, I.P.C.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, which was initiated on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar on 29-8-73. The petitioner was the Accountant, one K.D. Ghosh was the Nazir and there was a defalcation of Rs. 743/- in the year 1971. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet both against Shri K.D. Ghosh as well as the petitioner, Sri K.D. Ghosh being charge-sheeted under S.409, I.P.C, and the petitioner under Sec.477-A, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate on perusal of papers framed charges against Shri Ghosh as well as the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order of framing of charge on two grounds:- firstly the entire materials on record do not establish any offence under Sec.477-A, I.P.C. so far as the petitioner is concerned particularly when the, petitioner has no role to play in the matter. It is difficult to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage. It appears that the petitioner was the Accountant during the relevant period and he had made some entries in the Cash Book and, therefore, it is not possible at this stage for this Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the materials so far on record do not prima facie establish such an offence under Sec.477-A, I.P.C.. Accordingly I reject the said submission of the learned counsel. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the inordinate delay in the matter, it would not be in the interest of justice to proceed with the trial. According to the learned counsel, the F.I.R. was lodged on 29-8-1973, the charge-sheet was submitted on 12-4-1981 and charges were framed on 5-1-1982, in respect of the alleged misappropriation and false entries appertaining to the period January and February, 1971. According to the learned counsel it would really he futile to pursue this matter after lapse of 11 years and, therefore, this is a fit case where this Court should quash the charges framed as well as the proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a number of decisions. In the case of State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, AIR 1973 SC 494, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations in an earlier case reported in AIR 1971 SC 1367, Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam to the effect :