IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49665 of 2008 SMT.SUSHMA SINHA, WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- NAYA TOLA KUMHRAR, MEENAKSHI APARTMENT FLAT NO. 104, P.S.- AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner :- Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 4 12.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the A.C.J.M., Hilsa, Nalanda by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 467, 468 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 9/2008. The allegation in the First Information Report is that Aanganbari Sewika and Sahaika have been wrongly appointed by the Committee for extraneous conditions. The petitioner is a woman supervisor working in Ravidas Tola within the district of Nalanda. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work of the petitioner is to record the proceeding 2 and she cannot be considered to be a person involved in the selection process of Aanganbari Sewika or Sahaika. Referring to the enquiry report of the District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer, learned counsel submits that these reports do not indicate that the petitioner was involved in the process of selection. On the other hand it is submitted that the proceeding drawn up for the purpose of appointment to show that the petitioner had merely recorded and also forwarded the resolution to the Chief Development Project Officer, Nalanda. It is submitted that apart from recording the resolution and forwarding the letter of the resolution to the C.D.P.O., the petitioner had not played any role in the actual appointment. The documents referred to by the petitioner i.e. the proceedings in making appointment or the enquiry report of the District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer are not part of the case diary and the records and this cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. 3 The petitioner may however, place this document at the time of framing of charge and the Court on perusal of the case diary will pass appropriate orders in this case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)