Criminal Miscellaneous No.29762 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- Gulshan Kumar Pahuja @ Gulshan Kumar,Son of Late Lakshman Das Pahuja, resident of Marwari Thakurwari Gali, Khan Lodge Samastipur, P.S. Samastipur, District-Samastipur -- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- Opp.Party. --------------- For the petitioner: None. For the State : Mr. Brij Kishore Prasad, A.P.P. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. In this case, by order dated 21.2.2000, while admitting the case for hearing, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application , further proceeding in S.P.J.R.P.F. No.11of 1997/ T.R.No.309/1999 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate , 1st Class, Incharge Railway , Samastipur, shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case. 3. This is second round of litigation by the petitioner in a criminal case, in which he was chargesheeted for offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property ( Unlawful 2 Possession) Act,1966. 4. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 6.10.1997 in the present case vide Cr.Misc.No.3332 of 1998. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17.4.1998. When the case reached to the stage of charge , a discharge petition was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected by the impugned order ,i.e. order dated 22.9.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate ,1st Class, Incharge Railway, Samastipur in S.P.J.R.P.F. 11 of 1997 / T.R.No.309 of 1999 and thereafter the present petition was filed. This petition was admitted for hearing on 21.2.2000 and while admitting the case, lower court record was called for and it was directed that pending disposal of this application , further proceeding in S.P.J.R.P.F. No.11of 1997/ T.R.No.309/1999 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate , 1st Class, Incharge Railway , Samastipur, shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 5. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was licensee of the Railway and he was doing business in the name and style of “Gulsan Travel Agency”. On secret information, a raid was conducted and from the possession of the petitioner several incriminating articles, particularly railway properties were found. Besides railway properties, certain documents/fake tickets/ seal were recovered and accordingly an F.I.R. vide Samastipur R.P.F. Post Case No.11/97 for offence under Section 3 of the R.P.( U.P.) 3 Act, was registered. 6. On perusal of the record of the present case, it appears that after recovery of such articles besides registering an F.I.R. i.e. Samastipur R.P.F. Post Case No.11/97 under section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act , an another F.I.R. i.e. Samastipur P.S. Case No. 292 of 1997 was registered for offence under Sections 467,465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously, for the offences under the Indian Penal Code, a separate F.I.R. was lodged, i.e. Samastipur P.S. Case No.292 of 1997. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, whereby the discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate, while hearing on discharge petition, has examined the materials available on the record and the court was satisfied with the evidences/ materials brought on record and after assigning a detailed reason the learned Railway Magistrate by the impugned order has rejected the discharge petitioner. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has committed no error. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10. Since the present case was kept pending for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed forthwith and conclude the case expeditiously. 4 With the above observation and direction, the petition stands dismissed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 5th May,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )