IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43733 of 2008 KAMESHWAR PRASAD, son of Ram Sahay Prasad, Land Reforms Deputy Collector-cum- Special Officer, Dehri Municipality, Dalmianagar, Ps Dehri, district Rohtas, at present posted as Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa, PS and District Garhwa, Jharkhand – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 18.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas in Dehri PS Case No. 226/2001 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Penal Code. The allegations in the F.I.R. is that Sudama Singh, Tax Darogha of Dehri Municipality was appointed as the contractor for construction of road from the house of D.C. Dey to the house of one Hashim Ansari and Ghulam Khan. The allegation is that the road was constructed and on the basis of the measurement book prepared and checked by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, payments were made to the said contractor by the petitioner who happened to be the Deputy Collector Land Reforms-cum-Special Officer, Dehri Municipality. There are two allegations in the F.I.R. It is said that the muster roll did not contain the address of the labourers and as such it was not in proper form. Secondly it is alleged that certain receipts were produced by Sudama Singh showing purchase of stone chips 2 which appear to be forged. As far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he was in connivance with the said Sudama Singh or that he was remotely responsible for checking the work done with respect to construction of the said road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the allegation with respect to preparation of muster roll is concerned, the same appears to be somewhat far stretched as the muster roll does not contain the address of the labourer but is an attendance register showing the number of labourers attending the work on a given date. It is further submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the vouchers produced on behalf of Sudama Singh, they were routed through the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer. There is no allegation against this petitioner that he was to check the work or the register or the measurement book rather the role of the petitioner was limited to making payment on the report submitted by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer. The petitioner faced a departmental proceeding in which he was exonerated of the charges which also go to show that the petitioner in fact was not directly or indirectly involved in the alleged offences. The enquiry report before which the F.I.R. was instituted also does not indicate that the petitioner was in any manner responsible for preparation of muster roll or for passing of the alleged vouchers. The report does not indicate that the work done was sub-standard or was not satisfactory. It only specifies the anomalies which were allegedly committed by Sudama Singh in construction of the aforesaid scheme. 3 On perusal of the diary it appears that there is no specific allegation which would show the involvement of the petitioner in the said anomaly as pointed out in the F.I.R. In effect the facts of this case reveal that it is a case of no evidence as far as it concerns this petitioner and as such there is no likelihood of conviction. Considering these aspects the impugned order of cognizance is quashed so far it relates to the petitioner. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)