Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.6 of 2011 ====================================================== The State of Bihar Thru Amritendu Shekhar Thakur .... .... Appellant Versus Jai Muni Prasad .... .... Respondent ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 05-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 10.5.2011 passed in Special Case No. 7 of 1991 arising out of Vigilance P. S. Case No. 09/1991 by Sri Rabindra Nath Singh, Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna whereby the accused Respondent has been acquitted from the charge leveled under [STATUTE] and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prosecution case, in brief, is that unemployed candidates applied for loan under Self Employment Scheme. Petitioner as General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Saharsa selected those who gave some illegal money. The trial ended in acquittal to accused Respondent. It is made clear that 952 applications received by the Department, of them 475 candidates selected only. Of witnesses P.W.1 Ram Nath Prasad, P.W.2 Rama Shankar Prasad, P.W.3 Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2011 (3) dt.05-09-2012 2 Abdul Sattar Ansari, P.W.4 Gupteshwar Mishra are the witnesses, in presence of whom some documents were seized. P.W.5 Ashutosh Kumar, P.W.6 Pradeep Kumar Gupta, P.W.7 Kumar Ajay Hans, P.W.8 Prahlad Prasad Gupta, P.W.9 Bhuneshwar Prasad and P.W.10 Jamuna Singh are the witnesses to state that they gave bribe to accused Respondent for selecting their name but have not been accepted rather there is observation that none of the candidates whose prayer was refused appeared to state that any demand was made for selecting them for loan. Apparently it appears that witnesses are there to state against Respondent but their statement is that they paid some bribe. So, equally liable for accusation as giving and taking of bribe both is offence. In this case it appears that one set of accused persons, namely P.Ws 5 to 10 have not been charge-sheeted rather have been shown charge sheet witnesses but in the eye of law that never can be accepted. Thus, I find no mistake in the judgment/order committed by the trial court in acquitting the accused Respondent from the charge sheet leveled against him. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. A.I./- (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 477A

Statute Text:
Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Falsification of accounts. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.