-^A..-^\>^}*^U^U'^.^L^'iJ^^J^^^-^U'-^'•^••J^-J-^^^^1^'-/-^ •- :; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPU1 CrM.P.NO^'76 /2008 '•sa M PETITIONER- ^^&€ ^...••:-^<;^-r ^s^ <^y Mithu LalSahu,Aged about 59 years, S/o- Shri Sadhu Ram Sahu, Resident of New Colony Gaya nagar, Durg P.S. and DistrictDurg (C.G.j VERSUS RESPONDENT:- ^ State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara Shahar PETITION UNDER SECTION 4^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMIANAL PROCEDURE 1973, FOR ISSUAN.CE OF DIRECTION FOR FURTHER INQUIRY IN CRIME N0 144/04 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 409, 420"READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE1860 .& & 'Sw Sinale Bench ; Ho.nble i V US3 i.I<c iWQKer" P. Ne.5l6of 200i Mithu Lal Sahu Versus State of Chhssttisgarh Shn Yogesh Chondra Sharma,counset forthe petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State. >EK SE5-. Pr'esent ·petition.is filedunderSection 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure for issuance of direction for further inquiry in Crime N6;144/20G4 for the offencs puriishabje under Sections 409,420 read with Section 34 of the Indion Penal Code. .Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a!-so seeking quashment of the First Information Report which has been registered against the petitioner. .According to him prese.nt is a co.se where fair enquiry has not been conducted by th-s State &ovepnment o-nd the pet|tioner done hos been picked for tne best reasons known to the Sto.te ©overnment. . . 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of written report dated 1.7.2004 made by one M.C. Vishwakarma, Ex- Managep of Chtiattisgarh State Co-operative Market Federo.t!orT>, Kisan Rice'AAii!, Bhctaparo, police has registered the FI6 ogai"s+ th&flccused/petitiorierfortfteoffence'punistiab;le'ander',Section TO9^ 420'read with Section 34 of the Ihdian Penal Code. lo the --;-• " t.. aaiggaafiaSHS !1. ::li:i; !1 .'' ^, r-- "^- "I y^ so.id reportlthasbeen ment.iortedthat in fhefinancialyear 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002, whitepurchceihg the po.ddy, gunny bags were required and upon enquiry and yerification it hds bsen found that number of gunny bags are rr;issing, tota! loss which has been calculated by the Deportme.nt coffies to Rs.52,06,492/- dnd it has been mentioned in the FIR that it is ths petitioner who is responsible for the same. This written report is based on the enquiry Gonducted by the &epcrtment and in the said enquiry the responsibility of tKs petitioneF ha3 been fixed- 4. Contention of the counsel for the Detitioner is that the petitioner was posted at theGoncemed p'ace tiil 08.09.2002 only, thereafter, one AAr'. A.L; Dubey was posted in the year 2002 cnd then subsequentlyoneAAr.N. K. Sharma was posted and therefore the petitioner. alone cannbt be he!d liabie for the dieged misappropriation of the gynny bag-s. He sub<ri|t.3 that when Mr. Dubey was posted in piacs of the petitioner, he had made an attempt to giye the chcrge but the Said AAp. t)ubey has not taken the charge as certain yerifieat'son was not there and ultimate'y the chorge was given to one Spdown Keeper Santram Sahu. He further submits that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner and had it been done fairiy, the real culprits could h.ave been hi'ghlighted in the case asaccordingto him therearemore accused persons involved in th-e case. He aiso submits that during the tenureof the petitioner every recor'd was in ordercnd t.here was no misappropriation in gunny bags. 5. On the other hand, counsei for the Stote submits that it is not on!y the petition.er who has been mo.de accused but on8 Godown Keeper Santram Sahu, who had taken the.e|hargs from ~the. petitioner, has also been or'rayed as accused. Me further' ^ssife^K-K^siiii&iLiia yssaswva / '^-' ,11 /! '^•^1 '^-;3S.: v"S:"KS^^S^ ^iss^ "tfi'?.1: subm its that whatever defence hc» been !td<en by.1"Ke .Re't'itioner in this petition, is a matter of evidence and thct wouid be dec!d:ed at ths time of trid itself. He also submitsthat after conducting a detailed enquiry, iiability of the petitioner has been fixed and if during triat and after the evidence of the petitioner if comes within the knowledge of fhe court that some more accused persohs are.also inyolved, th®CQurt below and the prosecution would be at liber+y to take suitqbie action at ony Stage dgQinst such per^ns.'Me a!so submifs'j-hcH'at't'his stage neither the F.I.R. can be quasl'isd nor the.petitioner can seek dipection for furfher enquiry. 6. I have'heard counsef for the -parties <md perused the materia! availableon rscord. 7. Considsring the to+ality-of the facts in particular- the materictl cdllected by the prbsecution ogainst the petitioner, grdvity of 11w Nse and the huge arapunt inyolved, .E cm not inclined to snterfere in .The ppesent petition filed under .Section 482 of the Code of Crimina! Procsdure. The petitioner would be at iiberty to give defence during trial and if afterthe evidence, trio.1 Court is satisfied that there are some. more accUsed persons involved in the case then action may be taken in accoryancs with law. 9. Accordingly, the petifion being wifhout substance is liabje^ to bedisrnissed.It isdismissedassuch.t ' „.;. Pritinker Diwaker f^ge «-