SUDHANSHU BHUSHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) The petitioner was posted as B.D.O. Dhamdaha in the year 1984. While posted as B.D.O. Dhamdaha, under the N.R.E.P. scheme some work was alloted to one Shankar Prasad Rai, the Circle Inspector as an agent in the year 1985. Since as per the terms of the provisions of the scheme the work was to be done departmentally. The work was executed and it was found that a sum of Rs. 15,112/- is recoverable from the agent Circle Inspector along with interest over this amount. Petitioner's case is that he handed over the charge of B.D.O. on 10.12.1988 and proceeded on earned leave which was duly sanctioned by the authority concerned. Thereafter the successor in office of the petitioner joined on the post. In the year 1985, the petitioner as B.D.O. has directed the Circle Officer for depositing Rs. 15,000/- the principal amount as well as interest at the rate of 16% of this amount but the same was not deposited. Dhamdaha RS. Case No. 64 of 1990 was instituted against the Circle Officer Shankar Prasad Roy relating to offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of this case continued for 16 years. In the later stage of the investigation the supervising authority ignoring the officials correspondence which is the matter of record has mentioned that the then B.D.O. (Petitioner) should have asked for depositing the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest which he did not do. On the basis of such statement in the supervision note name of the petitioner was also impleaded in the category of accused and process for obtaining sanction for his prosecution was started. Finally the sanction order was issued in the month of June, 2006, but no chargesheet was submitted. This application was filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 64 of 1990. The ground which has been taken for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code as in the F.I.R. or the material which is collected during investigation there is no evidence indicating his participation in the commission of offence under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly it has been stated that on account of delayed and prolonged investigation he has suffered a lot and such criminal proceeding must be quashed. The petitioner has annexed a document in support of his defence i.e. Annexure-3 bearing letter no. 1115 dated 24.7.1989 written by D.O.C. Purnea to B.D.O. Dhamdaha. This letter itself indicate that the petitioner while posted as B.D.O. Dhamdaha had directed Shankar Prasad Roy for depositing Rs. 15,112/- along with interest at the rate of 16%.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that the statements made in the supervision note is against the material on the official record. In the supervision note there is no evidence against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the supervision note is not a part of the investigation and on that basis neither the petitioner can be charge sheeted nor the sanction for prosecution can be allowed by the competent authority.