NITYA NAND SINGH AND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been heard together as they are arising out of the same order dated 17-3-97 passed by Shri S. K. Sirha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 1800 of 1992 (Hatia P. S. Case No. 122 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate passed the order for issuance of summons against both the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this applications that Hatia P.S. Case No. 122 of 1992 was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners by one Yashoda Devi alleging therein that her husband Bahura Sahu working as Mazdoor in H.M.B.P. died in H.E.C. plant Hospital on 13-11-1987 and she was his nominee in his Provident Fund Account/Group Insurance etc. but one Maina Devi daughter of Moti Sahu impersonating herself as Yasoda Devi withdrew the final payment due to be paid to her husband Bahura Sahu and she was identified by Dinesh Sahu, Jagnarayan Sahu and Chunni Lal Naiyak. It is further alleged that the payments were made to Maina Devi even though the fact was known to the accused persons. Accordingly the first Information Report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against accused Dinesh Sah, Jagnarayan Sah, Chunni Lal and Maina Devi only but both the petitioners, namely, Aditya Nand Singh and Shyam Krishna Jha have not been sent up for trial. After submission of charge sheet cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken as far back as of 12-2-1993.

(3.) During the course of trial four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there is nothing specific against the petitioners but even then the learned Magistrate passed an order for issuance of summons against the petitioners.