IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4796 of 2009 SHARAD VERMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 30.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners question the order of cognizance dated 23.12.2008, under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Penal Code. After the tenor of the contract awarded with regard to collection of toll from vehicles parked at the railway station, the railways are stated to have been running it themselves. The petitioners are stated to be the Senior Officials of the rank of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager posted at Kolkata, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager posted at Samastipur and the Divisional Commercial Manager posted at Danapur. The allegation relates to the parking fees being collected at the Patna Railway Junction. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are that the railways officials on the spot at the parking lot were not issuing proper receipt and were not pasting counter foil on the vehicles which came in. Large number of vehicles came but it was not reflected in the 2 collection figures vis-à-vis the counter foils issued as a result of which in place of a sum of Rs. 3000/- per day being collected by the contractor earlier the railway officials were collecting only Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per day as parking fees. A bald statement has been made at the end of the First Information Report that other higher officials of the railways were involved. The Police after investigation submitted final form differing with which cognizance has been taken. The submission, therefore, is that even if there was any discrepancy in the counter foils and the collection figures, the answerability lay with the local officials on the spot who were collecting the parking fees and issuing counter foils. There is no allegation of the activity being done in a planned manner disclosing involvement of the petitioners, a meeting of minds on the manner on which it was to be conducted. Therefore, if cognizance had to be taken differing with the final form something more was required with regard to the petitioners to be done during investigation beyond that noticed from the case diary that there were certain official letters issued by them of the manner in which the parking facility were to be organized and run. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. 3 In absence of any allegations that the petitioners were physically present at the parking lot when others have been named to be specifically present and collecting the parking fees, the petitioners being superior officials who only issued guidelines and modality for running of the parking lot, it not being the case in the F.I.R. that the collection of money itself was done illegally, the failure in the impugned order to discuss the materials on basis of which a conclusion of their conspiracy surfaced without any discussion with regard to the materials for the aforesaid controversy, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order of cognizance against the present petitioners. The impugned order dated 23.12.2008 and the entire proceeding against them in G.R.P. Case No. 360 of 2006 pending in the Court of Railway Magistrate, Patna is hereby set aside, in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)