KAMLESHWAR PRASAD NAYAK Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the informant petitioner is directed against the order dated the 19th April 1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in G. R. Case no. 3437 of 8978 refusing to take cognizance against the accused opposite party under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code after differing from the police report.

(2.) The petitioner, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad Nayak, is the Vice Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Dalsingsarai, and the opposite party, Shyam Sundar Chaudhary, is the cashier under suspension in the said Notified Area Committee. The petitioner, as informant had made a written report dated the 8th December, 1978, to the officer-in-charge of the Dalsing Sarai Police Station. His case therein was that the opposite party was working as a cashier in the Notified Area Committee and he had paid no heed to his written and oral directions to keep the cash of the Notified Area Committee in the iron safe of the Notified Area Committee. On the 8th December, 1978 also, he had directed the opposite party to deposit the cash in his hand, which amounted to about Rs. 4000 with the Accountant, Ramchandra Chaudhari, so that the cash may be kept in the iron safe, but he had failed to do so. The complaint of the petitioner in his said written report was that the opposite party was keeping the said cash in his hand against the rules, and a prayer was made therein to take necessary action in the matter.

(3.) On the basis of the said written report, dated the 8th December, 1978 of the petitioner, Dalsingsarai P. S. Case no. 4, dated the 8th December, 1978 was registered against the opposite party under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code in which the police, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet no. 108, dated the 25th December, 1978 against the opposite party for his prosecution under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the said charge-sheet, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the parties but being not satisfied with the investigation, he by his order dated the 16th February, 1969, ordered further investigation and directed for submission of supplementary report.