Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.774 of 2006 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Ram Prit Patel, R/o village- Saknokhas Purab Tola, P.S.- Uchkagawn, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Yogendra Prasad Sotti S/o J.P. Soti Lab Assistant, Chemistry Department of Hindu Mahavidayalay of Delhi University, P.S. Moris Nagar, District- Delhi .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmveer, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 8 18-12-2012 By the impugned order dated 15.7.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 831 of 2004/Tr. No. 934 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, aforesaid petition of complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in exercise of powers under section 203 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally by an order dated 2.8.2004 learned Magistrate had issued summons against the accused-opposite party no. 2 for offence under [STATUTE] . However, opposite party no. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 296 of 2005/47 of 2005 assailing the correctness of the aforesaid order dated 2.8.2004, which was finally heard and disposed of by an order dated 28th April, 2006 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.774 of 2006 (8) dt.18-12-2012 2/3 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IV, Gopalganj. By the aforesaid revisional order, the original order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the opposite party no. 2 was held to be not legal and the matter was remitted back to the original court for passing a fresh order. Admittedly, on remand made by the learned revisional court below, further enquiry was made by the learned Magistrate in terms of section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, being the complainant, produced three more witnesses in support of his complaint case and for the purpose of issuance of process against the opposite party no. 2 in terms of section 204 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate scrutinised the materials produced by the petitioner for the purpose of finding out a prima facie case, but finally he came to a conclusion that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, produced during the course of enquiry. Therefore, it was concluded that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-opposite party no. 2. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 15.7.2006 the learned Magistrate in exercise of his powers under section 203 Cr.P.C. has dismissed the aforesaid complaint petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. After having heard the parties, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting any Patna High Court CR. REV. No.774 of 2006 (8) dt.18-12-2012 3/3 interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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.