IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2002 1. Dharamvir S/o Sri Ganga Ram R/o Village Chudiyala, P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar. 2. Satyapal S/o Janki Prasad R/o Village Chudiyala, P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar. ...…………. Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / State of Uttarakhand. 2. Sudhir Kumar S/o Ravi Datt Tyagi R/o Village Chaudiyala, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State / respondent No. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate present for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 4th of February 2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 1998, Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of U.P., whereby said court has set aside the order dated 28.01.1998, passed by trial court, discharging the accused (present revisionists), in Criminal Case No. 717 of 1997, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionists were the Managers of C.M.D. Inter College, Chaudiyala, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Certain discrepancies were said to have been found in the audit report for the period of 1998 to 1994. On the basis of said audit report, on the instructions of District Education Authority, the then Manager (respondent No. 2) lodged first information report against the accused (revisionists), relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C., with police station Bhagwanpur. Said report was registered as Crime No. 26 of 1995. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused, and the proceedings started in the form of Criminal Case No. 717 of 1997, before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. At the stage of framing of the charge, it appears that the accused took the plea that charge against the accused are not made out and they should be discharged. The trial court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee) vide its order dated 28.01.1998, discharged the accused Dharamvir and Satyapal. Aggrieved by said order, complainant Sudhir Kumar filed Criminal Revision No. 65 of 1998, which was allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, vide impugned order dated 04.02.2002, and the order of the Magistrate was set aside. Hence, this revision by the accused (present revisionists). 4) Though, second criminal revision is not maintainable, but since the first criminal revision before 3 the Sessions Judge was by the complainant, as such, the subsequent revision by the opposite party (accused), is maintainable. 5) On behalf of the revisionists it is argued that under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it was not the duty of the Managers to maintain the accounts of the amount received by the College, and as such, the Magistrate had rightly discharged the accused at the state of framing of the charge. In reply to this learned counsel for respondent No. 2 pointed out that the Principal was not responsible for maintaining account of all the receipts of the College, and the Manager cannot get absolved, particularly, at the stage of charge. 6) Regulation 10 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which were applicable to the College at the relevant point of time, contains the responsibilities of the Principal of the College. Clause (iii) provides that the Principal shall be responsible for internal discipline in the Institution, in respect of control and administration of all boys funds, free ships in respect of fee, and the scholarships. Regulation 11 of the above Regulations provides that any financial and other matters for which the Principal is not solely responsible, he shall follow the directions of the Committee of Management, as issued to him through the Manager. On going through the order dated 28.01.1998, passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, 4 in Criminal Case No. 717 of 1997, this Court finds that there were as many as nine items in respect of which the criminal misappropriation was alleged. Many of the items relate to the maintenance funds and other funds which were not covered under Regulation 10 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. That being so, in the opinion of this Court, the trial court had committed error of law by discharging the accused at the stage of charge. Therefore, this Court agrees with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, who has set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, discharging the accused. 7) However, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention here that it is open for the accused (present revisionists) to take their plea of innocence before the trial court, after framing of the charge. They can also show the evidence with them, during the trial, which they have relied and referred in this revision, to show that they are innocent. 8) With the above observations, this revision is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 17, 2010. H. Negi 5