LAXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Munsif & Judicial-Magistrate - Thanagazi has passed an order under S. 319, Cr. P. C. that the case shall also proceed against the accused petitioner for an offence u/s 420/468. I.P.C. The order of the learned magistrate dated 19.3.79 (Annexure Page 9 to the petition) has been challenged and it is prayed that the same be quashed.

(2.) To dispose of this application some facts need be stated, which are, that the accused-petitioner was a Block Development Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Thanagazi in the year 1976-77. There is a nursery under the Panchayat Samiti and one Rameshwar, Nursery Man, looks after the same. In the month of April, 1977 necessity arose for engaging additional labour for harvesting the standing the standing crop of wheat, and, therefore, the Nursery man was directed to engage additional labour, and accordingly six woman labourers, namely, Kailashi, Durga, Dhoopi, Misri, Lichma and Shanti were engaged and the total attendance of the labourers was 33. The daily wages at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per day per labourer were to be paid. Thus, for 33 days, an amount of Rs. 165.00 was to be paid to six labourers. It is alleged that a voucher for Rs 165.00was prepared and the same was paid to Ramesh war for being paid six labourers, above named. Rameshwar only paid Rs. 4/-per day to each of them, and thus paid only a sum of Rs. 132/-, whereas he should have paid Rs. 165/ - It appears that on 18.4.77, there was some dispute raised by the labourers about the wages and attention of Shivnarain Advocate was attracted. He filed a report to the S. H. O. Thanagazi, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed only against Rameshwar, the Nursery Man. During the course of the trial against, the said Rameshwar, two witnesses for the 'prosecution were examined, namely, Shivnarain (F W 1) and Nathuram (P W 2). An application was filed on 19.3.79 by Rameshwar accused requesting the learned Magistrate to take action and summon the accused-petitioner as well. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order.

(3.) The submission of the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner is, that there is absolutely no evidence on record, on which it can be said that it could appear to the learned Magistrate that the accused - petitioner, who was not an accused, has also committed an offence u/s 429/458, IPC. and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 319, Cr. P. C. that the accused-petitioner be also tried along with Rameshwar amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.