LAWS(PAT)-1997-1-83

SAHIL KUMAR DEAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 13, 1997
Sahil Kumar Dean Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager of Bihar State Food Corporation at Topchanchi and worked as such from 1.6.1994 to 15.10.1995. He has been made an accused in complaint case No. 6/96 for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He has moved this Court in the present application for quashing the order dated 1.5.1996 by reason of which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence and has issued summons to the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that during his tenure as Assistant Manager, Food Corporation, a complaint was filed against him by the District Manager of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. alleging, inter alia, that ihe petitioner while acting as Assistant Godown Manager, misappropriated and embazzaled the sale proceeds of food grains worth Rs. 1, 21,406.18 paise of Topchanchi godown, during the period from 1.6.1994 to 15.10.995 and converted the said sale proceeds to his personal benefit. Further allegation is that the petitioner caused loss of foodgrains worth Rs. 2,59,923, 44 paise of the said godown which was the result of his wilful negligence, carelessness and mismanagement.According to the complainant, being the Assistant Godown Manager of Topchanchi Godown, the petitioner was entrusted with huge quantity of foodgrains worth several lacs of rupees and the foodgrains were kept in the said godown under his custody and the accused as custodian of he said foodgrains belonging to the Corporation was responsible for any loss or shortage of the foodgrains.

(3.) MR . P.S. Dayal, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the allegation made in the complaint petition does not make out any case of criminal breach of trust inasmuch as loss sustained by the Corporation was due to negligence and carelessness of the petitioner and, as such, there was no criminal intention for which a case under Section 409 of the Penal Code could be registered against him. learned Counsel, drawing my attention to paras 15 and 16 of the complaint petition, has submitted that whatever loss was there, the same was due to negligence and mismanagement of the petitioner which may be a wilful negligence and care lessness and that may give rise to a departmental proceeding against the petitioner but definitely not a criminal case. According to him, it may be civil breach but cannot be said to be a criminal breach of trust attracting the provisions of the aforesaid Section of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention he has relied on two decisions reported in 1977 Cr LJ 654 and 1980 BBCJ 136,