JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Udit Narain Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, leained Additional Advocate General No. 3 for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5, and Mr. Uday Chandra Prasad for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Siwan Central Co -operative Bank Limited). This writ petition has been preferred by a former employee of respondent no. 3, who is alleged to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 3,19,276/ - while he was in service and is sought to be recovered under the provisions of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the petitioner was the Accountant -cum -Cashier with respondent No. 3. He is alleged to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 3,19,276/ - while he was in service leading to first information report against him wherein he was taken into custody and cognizance has thereafter been taken and he faces trial in the criminal Court. Copy of the first information report is marked Annexure -1. Respondent no. 3 has also taken steps to recover the amount from the petitioner by initiating a certificate case under the Act, which is registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 23/2003 -2004, pending before the learned Certificate Officer, Siwan. The petitioner challenges initiation of the proceedings under the Act on various grounds. He submits that an amount defalcated by the employee cannot be recovered as a certificate debt. He further submits that the requisite satisfaction of the learned Certificate Officer in terms of Section 6 of the Act has not been recorded which goes to the root of the case. He relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1998(3) PLJR 498 (Jai Prakash Dwivedi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). He lastly submits that the petitioner is continuously under custody since 3.2.2005. He cannot remain in custody beyond the period of six months in terms of Section 40 of the Act.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Schedule I to the Act provides the list of Public Demands which can be recovered under the provisions of the Act. It appears to me that respondent no. 3 has initiated the proceedings in terms of Clause 15(2) of the 1st Schedule to the Act, is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: -