RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the accused/ petitioner who is facing trial in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with Criminal Case No. 499/2002 State v. Rameshwar for the offences under Sections 408, 467,468,471 and 120B, IPC. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the revisional court whereby the revision Wed by the accused against the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences has been affirmed. Assailing the order framing charges and proceedings going on against the petitioner, it has been submitted by Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ramandeep Singh Sidhu appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the employee of the Bhadra Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti, Badara and while being so posted, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence of defalcation and forgery in relation to the accounts of the Samiti during the period of 1981-82. The FIR was filed on 21.6.1985 by the Vyavasthapak of the Samiti arraying the petitioner as accused for the offence under Section 408 IPC at the police station, Bhadra District Sri Ganganagar. The same was registered at the police station on 21.6.1985. The allegation was regarding the defalcation of the funds of the Samiti. The initial investigation was carried out and at the conclusion of the investigation, first charge-sheet against the accused and in relation to the total period of the alleged offence was submitted in the competent court on 21.11.1992, i.e. after ten years of the commission of alleged offences and after seven years of the registration of the FIR.

(2.) Thereafter, the matter kept on lingering for framing of the charges against the accused. On 31.6.1993, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the learned public prosecutor to file a separate charge sheet in the matter because the alleged period of defalcation was not such that the offence in relation thereto could be tried together. Thereafter, the matter kept on pending for filing of the separate charge-sheet by the prosecution. On 27.7.1995, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the prosecution to file the charge sheet on the very next date, failing which the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the case would be decided on the basis of the papers already available on record. However, despite this last opportunity, again time was given for filing of the separate charge-sheet. Before that two co-accused, namely, Pushkar Dutt and Sadhu Ram filed application on 14.5.1996 to discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. However, it appears that without the separate charge-sheet being filed, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to post the matter for arguments on charges on 15.11.1996 and then the matter kept on lingering for argument on charges till February, 1998 and on 15.2.1999 the charges were framed against the accused person on the basis of the original charge sheet itself. The aforesaid order dated 15.2.1999 was challenged by the accused by way of a revision and the revisional court remanded the matter back on 27.9.2000 with the direction to lower court to pass a reasoned order. On 5.12.2000, on the basis of the arguments on behalf of the accused persons, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate again directed the public prosecutor to file separate charge-sheet and the accused was discharged with liberty given to the prosecution to file separate charge-sheet against the accused petitioner. The file of the case was directed to be consigned to record.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that in the meantime proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act was going on against the petitioner and the enquiry officer arrived at the finding that the petitioner herein is responsible for the defalcation alleged against him. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 27.3.1984 fixed the liability on the accused and directed him to deposit the money in time. The said order was challenged by Kashi Ram and Aad Ram and the appellate authority found most of the charges not to be proved arid ultimately, the finding was given that Kashi Ram was liable to pay a sum of Rs.85 with interest and Aad Ram was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500 with interest.