IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28230 of 2008 UEMSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF YAMUNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DURGABARI, P.S. K. HAT (SAHAYAK), DISTRICT PURNEA AT THAT TIME POSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, DHAMDAHA BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF PURNEA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Veena Rani Jaiswal, A.P.P. ----------- 2 21.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner was the Junior Engineer posted at Dhamdaha in the year 1984. While he was posted at Dhamdaha, a scheme was floated for which one Shankar Prasad Rai, the Circle Inspector was appointed as the agent for performing certain works. The petitioner was the person who measured the amount of work performed by the said agent. On measuring the work, the petitioner found that the Circle Inspector (agent) had not constructed or completed work, the cost of which would amount of Rs. 15,112/-. After reporting the matter, the Block Development Officer directed the Circle Inspector to deposit the amount along with interest. It would appear that in fact the agent had deposited the amount. Stating the aforesaid facts, a First Information Report was instituted in the year 1990. Charge sheet was submitted on 17.12.2006 after a delay of 16 years. Two submissions have been forwarded on behalf of 2 the petitioner. It is firstly submitted that no offence would be made out under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code as far as the petitioner is concerned as he was not responsible for executing the work or taking the advance for execution of the work. It is submitted that the offence of criminal breach of trust would not be made out against the petitioner in facts of this case. This Court finds that in fact the petitioner’s role is limited measuring the work performed. In fact the petitioner has made a report on the basis of which recovery of Rs. 15,112/- was made from the agent, due to non performance of the work under the said scheme. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion on the basis of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner would not be held responsible for offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the aforesaid facts, it may be noted that the petitioner has been sufficiently punished in view of the fact that he has been pursuing the matter for more than 20 years and the charge sheet has been submitted after a great delay of 16 years. In the facts aforesaid, the order dated 15.5.2007 taking cognizance under Sections 409 and 418/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed as far as it relates to the petitioner in Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 64 of 1990 (G.R. No. 636 of 1990). This application is thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)