IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18651 of 1998 BINOD KUMAR VERMA SON OF SRI GIRIJA PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE;- CHAKARA, POLICE STATION- SIWAN,DISTRICT- SIWAN AT PRESENT DY. MANAGER, STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION, MUNGER……. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR……………………………………OPP.PARTY ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RAKESH KR. SINHA NO.1 MR. ANUJ PRAKASH,ADVOCATES ----------- 3 26-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned order of cognizance dated 19-12- 1997 passed by Special Judge, Motihari in Motihari Town P.S.Case No. 254 of 1982 whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The gist of allegation levelled by the prosecution is that under the orders of the District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran the petitioner, Assistant Godown Manager of Banjaria Godown of Food Corporation at Motihari was required to issue 20 quintals of rice to the dealer Raghubir Prasad who was also made a co-accused in the capacity of a dealer under the Public Distribution Scheme for Ward No. 13, Motihari. The allegation is that instead of 20 quintals of rice only 18 quintals were given to the dealer as per entries in the register maintained by the dealer. After investigation police submitted charge sheet only against the petitioner but not against the dealer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fault may be on the part of the dealer and the police 2 have not investigated the case properly and have wrongly relied upon the case of the dealer and charge-sheeted this petitioner who as per his documents had issued 20 quintals of rice. After investigation the police found the case against the petitioner true and submitted charge sheet against him. At this stage it is not possible for this court to hold that the petitioner’s defence is correct and he has actually issued 20 quintals of rice and it is the dealer who is guilty of mis-appropriating two quintals of rice. Even if the defence of the petitioner is true it must be proved before the trial court and on the basis of such defence only it is not possible for this Court to quash the criminal proceeding at this stage. This application is dismissed. It is clarified that this order shall not prejudice the defence of the petitioner before the trial court. Since the matter has remained pending for a long time, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)