SHIKSHA SAMITY, JAMESHDPUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.1998, as well as the order framing charge dated 19.12.2001 in connection with Parsudih PS Case No. 62 of 1998 corresponding to GR Case No. (sic) of 1998 registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471. 120-B and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Shri C. Ram. Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief as stated is that the resident of Singhbhum District constituted Siksha Samiti with a view and object to help poor and illiterate Adibasi Harijan and other poor in education, culture and other activities and all round development of all people. Shri Devendra Nath Deb is one of the founder member and is a Secretary of the Organisation but accused No. 1 tried to commit breach of trust of money of different Institutions and with this oblique motive has removed the other staff and teachers of the Institutions and he appointed his own son Debal Deb as Lecturer in the S.P.College whereas accused No. 3 was appointed as teacher in the said College. It is further alleged that as per rule of the College money to be deposited in the Bank and withdrawals to be made by the joint signature of the Secretary and the Principal (Professor-in-Charge) whereas accused No. 2 was made Professor-in-Charge and thereby misappropriated huge money of the Institution. It is further alleged that in violation of the rule accused Nos. 1 and 2 were keeping Rs. 33,513.93 paise in their hand with connivance by withdrawing from the Bank. A kacha account of imaginary item was prepared and it was found that account for August, 1992 was false and bogus. After forging the account of August, 1992. still a sum of Rs. 29.215.37 paise has remained in hand of accused Nos. 1 and 2. On 22.2.1995 the account of the College was audited and found that no account for Rs. 29.215.37 paise was furnished and thereby the accused persons misappropriated. the huge money of the Institution. Accordingly a first information report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the court below committed error in taking cognizance as well as passing the order for framing charge though there is no meterial to proceed with the case. It is further submitted that audit was already done which will be evident from Annexnre 6 and no discrepancy in balance was found. It is submitted that the Auditors who audited the expenditure during the period in question clearly held that there was no misappropriation of money by Sri Debal Deb accused No. 2 and the witnesses examined during investigation are the interested witnesses and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also drew my attention to the order dated 11.1.2001 passed in Cr. WJC No. 120 of 2000(R) in which there was a direction to the petitioners to file an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was open for the learned court below to take into consideration at the time of framing of charge but the learned court below passed the order impugned illegally having no material on the record to proceed with the case. It is also submitted that the informant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint case as neither he is a staff of the S.P. College, Jamshedpur nor he is in any way connected for running of the Institution and the money belonging to the College to be withdrawn by the joint signature of the Secretary and the Principal (Professor-in-Charge) is also not wholly correct rather the money used to be withdrawn by the joint signature of the Secretary and the Principal (Professor-in-Charge) and the Auditor categorically stated in the audit report that there was no misappropriation of fund by any of the accused persons, therefore, the order impugned is fit to be quashed.