JAYANT KUMAR PANDIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 1.7.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (for short 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant criminal misc. petition are that on 29.3.1999, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bichhiwara lodged a report against Block Development Officer Jayant Kumar Pandiya, Junior Accountant Govind Ram Verma and Fitter Jahoor Ahmed alleging therein that they have misused and embezzled the Government money in the matter of purchase of tools for hand pumps. After investigation, the police filed challan for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. Along with the challan, the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the Trial Court filed an application under Section 169, Cr. P. C. and a letter issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan. Jaipur dated 9.6.2003 addressed to the District Police Superintendent, Dungarpur, stating therein that on the relevant date of physical verification of the store, since the tools were kept at some other place, therefore, they were not found in the store. However, subsequently, those very tools were distributed to the Hand-pump Mistries and therefore, the purchased material has been used. However, financial irregularities appear to have been committed by Pandiya and therefore, the State Government instead of according sanction to prosecute the petitioner, decided to proceed against the petitioner departmentally under the C.C.A. Rules. In these circumstances, the prosecution sought release of the present petitioner under Section 169, Cr. P.C. The Trial Court, dismissed the application and took the cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below and the letter of the State Government dated 9.6.2003 filed by the prosecution.