IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24497 of 2011 Ashok Kumar, Son of Late Sahdeo Ram, resident of Mohalla-Dilawarpur, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger. ………..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ………….Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 25.07.2011 Heared learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has come against the order dated 17.5.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Munger in Civil revision, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Lakhisarai, by which he had rejected the application of discharge filed under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of material collected in course of investigation, ingredients of offence under Section 409 of the IPC are not attracted. According to him, the charge relates to non-production of vouchers, which according to him would not amount to entrustment of any property. The further submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that thus, vouchers were destroyed in flood and the same could not have been produced by the petitioner for compelling reasons and for these facts a charge under Section 409 IPC cannot be framed. Since, the petitioner had already resorted to his remedy in revision before the Sessions Judge against the order by which his application under Section 239 of the IPC is rejected. The application though has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be in the nature of second revision. Even, on facts the 2 law is well-settled that even on strong suspicion a charge can be framed. Taking into consideration the entire fact of the matter, the present application is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)