RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18-12-98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in RC 19/(A)/93(R) whereby he rejected the petitioner's application for discharge and framed charges under Sections 120-B, 402, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) Mr. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He firstly submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and there is no mention of the place and time where the offence was committed. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below has committed an error of record by referring the report of the expert, Calcutta to the effect that the signature of the petitioner was found. It was further submitted that the Magistrate while passing the impugned order and framing charge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner being a Government servant, his prosecution without sanction of the appropriate authority was unauthorised. According to the learned Counsel, it was one K.P. Sharma who did all the acts and conspiracy and there is no material in the case diary to disclose any conspiracy so far as this petitioner is concerned.