Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43459 of 2009 ====================================================== Shiv Shankar Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Damodar Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village Rampur, Police Station – Hasanpur, District – Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Jyotish Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Deo Narain Sharma. 3. Nilambar Shara alias Appu. 4. Navin Kumar Sharma 5. Pintu Sharma Opposite party nos. 3 to 5 are the sons of Jyotish Prasad Sharma. 6. Rajendra Prasad Roy alias Raju Rai, Son of Late Ram Swarup Roy. All residents of village – Rampur, Police Station – Hasanpur, District – Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S.Sundram For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 26-03-2012 Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is informant before the court below has approached this court with a prayer to quash an order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Samastipur. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rosera, in Tr. No. 2241 of 2006 (arising out of Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2003). During the trial before the learned Magistrate twice Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43459 of 2009 (2) dt.26-03-2012 2 / 3 2 prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for statement of accused persons. The learned Magistrate initially granted indulgence for examining one Harihar Prasad Sharma as prosecution evidence who was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. The name of Harihar Prasad Sharma had transpired during the evidence of one Kapil Deo Thakur. Twice case was closed and it was fixed for statement of accused persons. However, at belated stage, petition was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning Harihar Prasad Sharma, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The said order was challenged before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court by its order dated 18.11.2009 has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning Harihar Prasad Sharma. From perusal of the record it is evident that occurrence in the case had taken place long back in the year 2003 for the offence under [STATUTE] . Keeping in view the fact that the matter is old one and moreover number of witnesses have already been examined, for just decision in the matter, the court is not interfering with the order of the Revisional Court. However, it is necessary to direct the court below to proceed with the case so that trial may come to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43459 of 2009 (2) dt.26-03-2012 3 / 3 3 its logical end without any further delay. With above observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.