Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7409 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Raj Kumar Singh S/O Shri Krishna Singh Resident Of At + P.O.- Bagoura, P.S.-Durounda, Dist.-Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar Through Its Director General Of Police, Patna 2. Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Dy. Inspector General Of Police (Personnel And Administration), Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Saran At Chhapra, Bihar 5. Superintendent Of Police, Siwan, Bihar 6. Sub-Inspector Of Police, Durounda Police Station, Siwan, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, Asst. Counsel to G.A.-III ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2. 11-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. There are no disputed facts. The application has to be decided only on questions of law. It is not considered necessary to adjourn the matter for a counter affidavit. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under Advertisement No. 704/2004. On successful competition he was selected and called for medical and character verification on 11/12.2.2009. Column-7 of the character verification form contained a query if he had been an accused in any case and had suffered Patna High Court CWJC No.7409 of 2012 (2) dt.11-05-2012 2 / 10 2 imprisonment. The petitioner answered “No”. On 14.2.2009 he gave an application to the D.I.G, Saran at Chapra that there had been some confusion in his character verification. He had been involved in a land dispute and was sentenced by the Lower Court. He was released by the High Court and the case set aside. He was therefore innocent enclosing copies of the Court order. On 16.2.2009, the D.I.G. forwarded his application to the ADG (Personnel). The ADG (Personnel) on 5.10.2009 held that the character verification revealed he was an accused in Daraundha P.S. Case No. 129/97 under [STATUTE] . Charge sheet No. 116 of 1997 was submitted on 31.10.1997. The character verification column was to be filled by the candidate. Prima facie he appeared to have concealed facts and given wrong information. His candidature was rejected. It may be noticed that the order did not deal with the subsequent events mentioned in a composite manner by the petitioner enclosing copies of the relevant Court orders. Criminal Revision No. 978 of 2008 was preferred by the petitioner against his conviction before this Court. The order dated 24.11.2008 reveals sentence for 18 months only. The petitioner had no criminal history. The occurrence related to a land dispute. He was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The sentence was set aside but conviction was affirmed. He was required to Patna High Court CWJC No.7409 of 2012 (2) dt.11-05-2012 3 / 10 3 execute a bond for one year within 15 days, to maintain good behaviour. It would have expired in or around 9th of December, 2009. The petitioner assailed the order dated 5.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 16574 of 2009. It was set aside by a discussion and the matter remanded to reconsider the candidature. It has been rejected again by order dated 16.9.2010/25.4.2011 and which is presently assailed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in C.W.J.C. No. 16574 of 2009, the Court held on the facts that it may have been appropriate for the petitioner to make proper disclosure, but his defence that it was a bona fide error in a mistaken belief without any intentional concealment or fraud after the order in the Criminal Revision merits consideration. The respondents did not challenge the findings. The legal implication of his release under the Probation of Offenders Act was not relevant. It was his understanding of the effect which is relevant. The impugned order takes into consideration irrelevant issues not germane when it makes a distinction between a Constable and a Sub- Inspector. The respondents could not have arrived at a conclusion contrary to the finding of the Court that the petitioner had not committed intentional concealment and that it was a bona fide error. Counsel for the State submits that on the date Patna High Court CWJC No.7409 of 2012 (2) dt.11-05-2012 4 / 10 4 of police verification the conviction of the petitioner and the bond under the Probation of Offenders Act was both subsisting. Only the sentence had been set aside. The petitioner was a Graduate and was expected to disclose his conviction by the trial Court along with subsequent developments and leave the issue for final decision by the respondents. But for his release under the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner was apparently ineligible to be considered because of the conviction and consequent wrong disclosure. It was lastly submitted that the impugned orders draw sustenance from an order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13845 of 2009. It has been held that if a person is seeking appointment in the police force, was an accused in a criminal case, withholding information with regard to his character verification, was a good ground to deny relief. The petitioner had been called for police verification on 11/12.2.2009. He informed the respondents of the bona fide error committed by him as early as 14.2.2009. He mentioned the earlier conviction and also explained the reason for his belief that he had not made any wrong disclosure in Column-7. His bona fides are evident from the fact that he enclosed copies of the relevant Court orders. If he had any foul intentions he would not have enclosed copies of the Court order and left the respondents guessing. The petitioner was not a Graduate in law or trained Patna High Court CWJC No.7409 of 2012 (2) dt.11

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.