..f-:. ;enff JN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. )6) / 2006 Petitioner ^' I® <^ ^'^. ^.^^-•\ ^^ ^ -i^' -(^ Lochan Prasad Choudhary Aged about 56 years, S/o Mahesh Ram, R/o Banasiya, P.S. - Kotra Road, Raigarh, g"^ Dist : Raigarh-fC.G.) Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate Raigarh-(C.G.). /.Sg'TITION U/S 48'2 OF CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE (' '•"' &te@<81-t^®^i»^^__ XI-HC-78 KSW sn^Twf^riq; (piTsn^r^TRi *11^dl »)*1|cb s^ET-^pn^ra', ®Tfl+ris,fa<vii+iy ^c:-^^.,e;/?./.. >y ¥P? 2006 311^1 iiach (1^3^^) STaraTdfN'a-n^T Shri Shrawaa Agreiwal,| Shri O.K.Beriwal, Dy. advance copy. Heard on adiiiission. This petition is directe(|i passed by fhe Second Additi]i Court-Sarari.garh in Criminall criiaia.al revision was liled passed by fhe Judicial M£| Criininal Case No.584/2004, read with Section 34 IPC N petitioner and 3 ofb.er co-accij the aforesaid criiaiaal revisiol charge by the Magista-ate, was| Learaed coiuisel for t9 prtma facie inaterial agaiast 1( Section 409 read with Sectionl report, A perusal of the order f tiiat a laisappropriatiou of R| concemed authoriTies on a4 duriiig the period, in which, present petitioner v/as Barainlcela Branch, under =fti<<(<-i<fl'i *iiKMTifte<f|'<l«i<-iii< ^3ri=HT3IT^T Counsel for.the petitioner. Advocatf Geaeral for the State on fl agamst the order dated 13.7.2006, ^)nal Sessions Judge, Raiga-rh Cam.p |Rewsion No.44/2005. The aforesaid ^gainst the order dated 24.1.2005, (gistrate First Class- Sarasgad in ]sy which, a charge uiiuer Ssction 409 tis been fi-amed agaiast the present •4sed persons. The petitioner has filed 3|a, oa which, fhe order of framiag of coiifimied by th.e Sessions Court. petitioner argues tbat fa.ere is no |he petitioaer to frame charge under 34 IPC. He reads -the copy ofwntteii tiassed by fhe Magistrate wo-ald show i^.7,87,159.55 was discovered by the iiiquiiy beitig inade by fhe-si and the iiiisappropriation was doue, fhe wo^king as fhe Bran.cl'i Manger of [which, the aforesaid Samitis are XI-HC-78 SII^TWf^lN; cISTI3<I^IStiK fe •MllL. ^1#*if fl*hLAKtt» HTHCTI ShW*> 3^-qpTRPT, ®Tfl'M'ie,[si<ni+iy __ C^.^l.P- f?l ^r 200(0 aii^i yicti (i^gg^r) ??gTWHf?cT3n^T - ^- tlie hlas situated. Siace the aforesaidl for the Said Samitis and supervise fhe works of fhe given to it, this petitioner iuquiry and ultunately, a c4i charge was framed by the fft along with fhe chai^e^iics-fc. I do not find any iUegaIjil as weU as by the Sessions Section 409 read with Sectioii petitioner by fhe Magistrate ^. The charge is based on There is no inerit ta this revit inotion stage itself. pra}ia °t)i<iFi-i41-('tiii<-iTffteI^t'<fS]wi< ^3[f^ITgri^T Branch was the finaacial institution jurisdiction of the Branch was to ISamitis so-as to secure the iiaaace also beea held responsible in the c4imiaal case was filed, ia wbicb, fhe NIagistrate on the above laaterial filed ;al|ily in the view takeu by the Magistrate Judge, hy which, £he chai^e zuider 34 IPC has been fraiaed agaiast this tod confinued bv the Sessions Court. facie inaterial avaitable on record. ifeion aad tlie saiiie is disiuissed at fhe Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. T