IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56992 of 2007 PITAMBER PRASAD SINHA @ PITAMBER SINGH, son of Late Anant Narayan Singh, village Rahua Sangram, PS Bheja (Madhepur), District Madhubani – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 9.4.2010 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 1.10.2007 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G.R. No. 1108/1988/Tr. No. 935/2007 arising out of Madhubani (Town) PS Case No. 189/1988 refusing to discharge the petitioner. The F.I.R. was instituted by the District Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies, Madhubani. In this case there are two audit reports, one by Md. Abbas and the other by Ram Bilas Singh. By audit report no.273, dated 7.7.1988 it was Ramdeo Singh who was held responsible for the alleged misappropriation. The Ist audit report was challenged and the second audit report was prepared. In the first audit report Ramdeo Singh has been cleared. In the second report it is said that some other co-accused persons were involved in this case. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that he was held responsible for not depositing the surcharge amount. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the surcharge amount of Rs.1205/-. The question as to which of the two audit reports would be the anchor sheet of the prosecution depends on stand of the District Cooperative Officer. This aspect of the matter can only be taken up at 2 the stage of the trial in the case. In order to avoid confusion the court conducting the trial should notice the District Cooperative Officer / District Cooperative Audit Officer so that they can come up with the specific stand as to which audit report they are going to rely upon. At this stage it cannot be held that the first audit report is the anchor sheet of the prosecution case or for that matter the second audit report will be the basis of the trial. The confusion arises because of the fact that the audit report of Md. Abbas exonerates some of the accused persons, whereas the audit report of Ram Bilas Singh exonerates another set of the accused persons. This confusion ought to be cleared by the trial court before proceeding with the trial. As far as the order of discharge is concerned, at this stage this court cannot hold that one or the other audit report should be relied upon by the prosecution and as such this court cannot interfere with the order of discharge. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)