MOHAMMAD YUNUS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner of this case is a Government official and is holding the post of Enforcement Sub Inspector in the Transport Department, Government of Bihar. On the date in question he was deputed for special vehicle checking drive at Piprakothi in the district of East Champaran, which was being carried out by the Transport Department. His posting is by an official notification in this regard, which has been brought by the petitioner on record as Annexure -2. This is dated 19.6.2003. The petitioner has moved this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceedings in (Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 63/03/G.R. No. 1451/03/T.R. No: 827/06 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. He has been charge sheeted under Sec.384 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance taken against him. Since his application filed under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate he had to file the present application challenging the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him.

(3.) ON filing of chargesheet against the petitioner, cognizance was taken against him under Sec. 384. of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari. On the above development the petitioner filed a discharge petition under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on various grounds. The basic defence being that he was carrying out his job in official capacity and was duly deputed at the place for vehicle checking. The allegations against him are motivated and that next day he had deposited the money which he had collected as fines in the Government Treasury. He also tried to pick holes in the investigation in terms of the evidence which emerged in the case -diary. However, vide order dated 3.11.2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition of the petitioner for discharge as in his opinion there was sufficient material on record to proceed in the matter. The petitioner thereafter invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.