UMESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th March, 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 762(c)/93 by which opposite 787 /93 party no.

(2.) HAS been discharged for the offence punishable under sections 406 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to the case are that one Shri R.N. Rajak, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna (opposite party no. 2) had cheated the petitioner (complainant) to the tune of Rs. 21,000/. It has been alleged that the complainant was given temptation by Shri Rajak and promised him to give a job in Minor Irrigation, Jehanabad. The petitioner was assured to pay Rs. 21,000/. The said amount was paid on 10.8.1992 in presence of Shri Ramdeo Singh, Up -Mukhiya. It has been alleged that the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to appoint him on daily wages. He also directed the Executive Engineer to contact him in the office after giving the work. The second letter which is Annexure -2 makes it clear that as per promise he had fulfilled his service. Mr. Khan was directed to do and to follow his instruction and explain the delay in his appointment. The third letter is well proved the said letter admits that the Chief Engineer has received the service and it was difficult in his part to return back the amount. The petitioner (complainant) was examined on solemn affirmation and statement of other witnesses were taken and thereafter cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in which it has been stated that the act alleged against the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner does not attract a case under sections 406, 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code since the ingredients required for the offence under the aforesaid sections is not there. It has also been stated that section 161 of the Indian Penal Code has already been repealed through 1988 Criminal Amendment. Even if the alleged act attributed to opposite party taken to be true he is liable to be charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and for that prior sanction is very much required and it is triable by the Special Judge.