Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16748 of 2010 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Prasad @ Ajay Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen PrasadSingh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 20-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. Even after service of notice upon Opposite Party No.2 the Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear. Petitioner/accused is aggrieved by an order dated 15.3.2010 passed by S.D.J.M., Pupri at Sitamarhi in connection with Complaint Case No. C1-364/2005 whereby and where under the learned lower Court directed for amendment of the charge under [STATUTE] . Simple submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after examination of P.Ws. the Opposite Party No.2/ complainant had filed a petition for addition of charge and the same was rejected by order dated 18.4.2007 against which Criminal Revision No. 86/2007 was filed. Learned Revisional Court after going through the evidence on the record had rejected the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16748 of 2010 (3) dt.20-07-2012 2 / 3 2 Revision petition and finding the order of the learned lower Court remained intact. Thereafter, Trial proceeded and concluded and on the relevant date when the case was fixed for judgement, the learned lower Court instead of delivering judgement, passed the order impugned, which happens to be contrary to factual as well as legal aspect because of the fact that having the prayer once rejected by the learned lower Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court, the lower Court was not competent enough to re-consider the same on the same set of material whatever was existing at the earlier occasion. As per submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it tantamounts to judicial indiscipline where under the Court below had sat over the order of Superior Court and that happens to be reasoned behind that, inspite of having the order of the Revisional Court available on the record, he completely ignored it. The learned Additional P.P. opposes the submission and submitted that under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.the Court was quite competent to alter the charge. Then submitted that it happens to be within the exclusive discretion of the Court and should not be interfered with in routine manner. From perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that there happens to be presence of only three witnesses, who had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of those witnesses were also available at the time of passing of order dated 18.4.2007 as well as Cr. Revision No. 86/2007 during course of which the evidence on record were duly scrutinized and therefore, certainly, the present step taken by the learned lower Court happens to be a glaring example of impropriety and should not be Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16748 of 2010 (3) dt.20-07-2012 3 / 3 3 patronized. As such the order impugned is setaside. Petition is allowed. The learned lower Court is warned to be cautious in future while dealing with the issue wherein the matter had sailed through superior Court at an earlier occasion. The office is directed to get the copy of the order impugned personally served upon concerned P.O. through District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. Sudha/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, 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.