IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30160 of 2007 SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH son of late Ram Nath Singh, resident of village- Mahuyat, P. O. and Police Station- Mahuyat, District Kaimur. … Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …Opposite party. ----------- 4. 20.08.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer for quashing of an order taking cognizance dated 1.6.2007 in Sheosagar P. S. Case No. 164 of 2005 has been pressed only on the basis of a subsequent event i.e. the report of Mukhia and Panchayat Sachiv dated 30.10.2006(Annexure-3) which according to the petitioner was not taken into account by the police in course of investigation and submission of charge-sheet against him. From the reading of the first information report it would appear that Block Development Officer basing on the report of the DCLR dated 2.8.2005 had lodged the criminal case as with regard to misappropriation of government fund by the concerned agents/employees of the Rohtas Collectorate and in respect of this petitioner it was mentioned that for a Bhadrashila 2 Project having an estimated amount of Rs.38,000/- the total work done was only to the tune of Rs.13,772/- and the remaining amount of around Rs.24,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner who stood transferred from the post of Panchayat Sewak, an agent, on his being posted as Block Agriculture Officer, Obra in the District of Aurangabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said information was a half hearted information and in fact if the contents of Annexure-3, the joint report of Mukhiya and Panchayat Sachiv dated 31.10.2004 had been taken into account it could have been found that entire project of Bhadrashila had already been completed and therefore it would be futile to contend that the petitioner had misappropriated any portion of the amount allotted to him for completion of the project. In the opinion of this Court, the said defence of the petitioner can always be considered by the trial court at an appropriate stage but then if the police also conducts a further investigation in terms of 3 Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finds the contents of Annexure-3 to be correct and genuine, probably the case against the petitioner for misappropriation of government fund in relation to only scheme, Bhadrashila, may not stand substantiated. That being so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the court below for passing an appropriate order. In the event, such application is filed the court below will call for a report from the investigating officer as with regard to genuineness and correctness of the said proceedings of Panchayat dated 30.10.2006, Annexure-3, to this application, containing the joint signature of Mukhiya and Panchayat Sachiv and after considering the same the court below will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)