IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53731 of 2007 PAPPU SINGH S/O LATE DUDHESHWAR SINGH --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 03 13.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner assails the order taking cognizance under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 414, 467, 468 and 120B of the Penal Code on the ground that there is absolutely no legal materials available on record justifying his prosecution. An F.I.R. was lodged on 23.08.2003 by the officer-in-charge of Mufassil P.S. Aurangabad alleging therein that on getting information on telephone they went to the brick kiln of one Bhim Singh and found iron rods laden on the trailer. It is alleged that the aforesaid Bhim Singh was involved in stacking stolen iron rods and transporting them to other place(s). The iron rods were seized. It is the prosecution case that 02 persons assembled there escaped. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation no witness named the petitioner either as a person who was found at the place of occurrence or as an associate of aforesaid Bhim Singh who has been named in the F,I.R. as an accused. It is contended that the supervising police officer (Dy.S.P.) in paragraph no. 63 has only observed in his supervision note that the police was given information that Pappu Singh along with Bhim Singh was involved in dealing with these stolen MS iron rods. Learned counsel further submits that had it been the case then he would have been definitely named in the F.I.R. Unfortunately there is no whisper about the aforesaid information having been received by the police in the F.I.R. which led to raid and seizure. It is stated that observations made in the supervision note cannot be treated as an evidence or material justifying prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, on perusal of the case diary concedes to the aforesaid stand of the petitioner. He submits that in paragraph no. 52 of the case diary statement of a worker has been recorded which was made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which also the petitioner has not been named. If that be so then the present case is covered by one of the categories cited in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings including the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case no. 346 of 2003 ( Tr. No. 393 of 2007) in so far these relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)