MAFIZUL ISLAM MIA Vs. K.P. SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two references made by the Sessions Judge, Tripura, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges framed by the S.D.M., Sadar, on 30.5.1963 against the petitioner -accused in CR. cases No. 16 of 1963 and 15 of 1963 on his file respectively under Sections 406 and 403 I.P.C. for the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation. As the learned Counsel for both the parties argued both the cases as clubbed and as the same questions of law arise for determination and as the petitioner is the same in both the cases, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Criminal reference 14 of 1965 the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a contractor, who was previously executing contracts in the Public Works Department, Tripura, that on 21.11.1960 he entered into a contract with the Executive Engineer, Agartala Division No. III for construction of a Primary School for 150 days in Dakshina Anandanagar, that in pursuance of the contract the petitioner was entrusted with 100 bags of cement, 15 bundles of G.C.I. sheets and 5 Cwt. M.S. Rod 5/8' diameter, on 17.1.1961, of the total value of Rs. 5.520.76 nP., but that he constructed only the plinth utilizing 30 bags of cement and that he committed either criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation of the remaining materials. So, the Executive Engineer, Agartala Division No. III filed a written complaint on 7.1.1963 against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Agartala, Sadar, for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 406 or Section 403 I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned S.D.M., Sadar, examined witnesses separately and framed alternative charges in each case. He clubbed the Charges for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 I.P.C. and for dishonest misappropriation or conversion to the use of the petitioner of the properties in question under Section 403 I.P.C. by making them alternative in the same composite charge in each case. But, the time included between the first and last of the dates in the charges did not exceed one year. For the sake of clarity, the charges framed in C.R. 16 of 1963 (which are similar to the charges framed in C.R. 15 of 1963) are reproduced below: