IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2176 of 2009 RAJDEO PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.4.2010. Heard Sri Farooque Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Sri D.Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. The case relates to misappropriation of cereals meant to provide mid-day-meals to children of a particular school. The report indicated that in spite of the turnout of students being low, the distribution was shown among 196 students of the school. This was found on comparison of the attendance sheet and the distribution chart and thus, there was a huge bungling by way of misappropriation which was committed not only by the petitioner but also by the Block Development Officer and the Headmaster and the officer of the Education Department who could be involved with the exercise of providing mid-day-meals to children. The grievance of the petitioner is that the records of distribution were fortifying him against the accusations and no offence appears to be committed by him. However, the court finds the report credible and the allegations prima- - 2 - facie appearing acceptable. What the court finds is that not only the petitioner Rajdeo Prasad but the Headmaster of the school along with the B.D.O., who issued the certificate about the proper utilization of the grain and any other person or persons who could be having the supervisory role in providing the mid-day-meals were also required to be summoned as accused along with the petitioner. The summoning of those persons appears utterly necessary in the interest of justice as also to otherwise secure the ends of justice. I direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia to peruse the whole record of Amour P.S.Case No.42 of 2002 with a view to finding out as to who were the accused besides the petitioner Rajdeo Prasad whose hands also appeared in the commission of the offence. The C.J.M., Purnea may note that an order of cognizance could be passed only once in a case but once it has been passed, there could not be any bar in passing multiple summoning orders in that cases. He may further note that a person could be made an accused by describing him by his office on a particular date or period of - 3 - time. I direct the C.J.M., Purnea to act accordingly as he may be knowing that it was not only his duty to find out as to what offences were made out from the police report submitted to him by the police after close of the investigation, but it was also his duty to find out as to who the real offenders were. The court believes that the C.J.M., Purnea passes the order within a month of receiving the copy of the present order. The Magistrate, who is presently seized with the above noted case, may remit back the whole record of the above noted case to the C.J.M. for the above purposes whereafter the C.J.M., Purnea may remit back it for trial. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )