Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13695 of 2011 (4) dt.28-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13695 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Md. Wahid S/O Late Kadir Mian, Assistant District Board, Katihar, R/O Village - Makdumpur, Police Station - Muffasil, District – Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. L.K.Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 28-09-2012 No one appears even after the notice on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Katihar, O.P. No. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Katihar in G.R. No. 1611 of 2007 arising from Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 58/2007 for offences under [STATUTE] whereby and whereunder the court below has dismissed the discharge application. An FIR was instituted on the basis of letters dated 6.8.2005 and 7.1.2006 where it has been alleged by the District Zila Parishad, Katihar that there was a wooden bridge in between Govindpur Chowk to Bhawara. It has further been alleged that without any official order one Girijesh Kumar Diwakar had removed the wooden panel from the bridge. It has further been alleged that Mr. Wahid, petitioner had also actively participated there which is apparent from letters dated 6.8.2005 and 7.1.2006 written by Mr. Mohammad. It has further been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13695 of 2011 (4) dt.28-09-2012 alleged that Sri Diwakar was required to keep wood logs properly along with the detail at proper place. It has further been alleged that all wood logs were misplaced causing loss of more than Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) to the District Zila Parishad, Katihar. On the basis of this written complaint, a case was instituted as Dhankhora P.S. Case No. 58/2007 for offences under [STATUTE] . The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet and the court below took cognizance under the aforesaid sections. An application was filed by the petitioner for his discharge and the court below heard and matter and passed the order impugned found the discharge petition having no merit and dismissed the same. It appears from the impugned order that the court below has examined the different paragraphs of the case diary and prima facie found strong suspicion on the basis of materials available on record against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was also proceeded with in a departmental proceeding, placed reliance on the enquiry report made submission, when the petitioner has been let off in a departmental proceeding then there is no question of the petitioner to be proceeded with in a criminal case. On examination of the enquiry report it does not appear that the petitioner has been let off clearly but benefit of doubt has been given. The counsel for the opposite party has submitted that at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13695 of 2011 (4) dt.28-09-2012 the time of considering the discharge application, the court below was not required to examine material meticulously rather it was only to see strong suspicion. The court below on consideration of material on record has held that there are sufficient materials to give the inference of strong suspicion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Orrisa V. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 has held that at the stage of the framing of the charge, the court below is not required to examine the material meticulously. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned, Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage and dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of petitioner in the trial. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.