IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45250 of 2007 CHANDRA BHUSAN PRASAD VERMA @ RAMDEO MAHTO @ CHANDRA BHUSAN PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Nalanda Biharsharif (Bihar) PS Case No. 211 of 2002 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of the Penal code on 20.6.2002. The informant, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nalanda alleged that the petitioner had contested the elections to the Zila Parishad fraudulently in the name of his brother Chandra Bhushan Prasad. The petitioner is stated to be Chandra Bhushan Prasad alias Ramdeo Mahto. The matter was investigated by the Officer Incharge of Laheri PS and the Anchal Adhikari and the allegations were found true. The petitioner had therefore also violated Section 193 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act read with Rule 139 (Gha). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has two brothers named Brahamdeo Prasad and Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Appended to the application is Annexure 3, an extract of the voter list. He submitted that the petitioner had no fourth brother with the same name as that of the petitioner. His application for discharge came to be rejected on 31.7.2007 noticing that the materials with respect to his voter’s identity card, life insurance were matters to be considered 2 during the trial itself and that there were sufficient materials in the case diary on the allegations to go to trial. Learned Counsel for the State in all fairness found it difficult to place any material before this Court from the case diary that the petitioner were four brothers, much less that he had a brother with a similar name. The only material collected during investigation was the alleged statement of a Class IV employee of the Department of Panchayat Raj suggesting that the petitioner had contested in the name of his brother without any further details of the alleged fourth brother. If the Police was investigating the matter, surely it was required to record the statement of any voter of the constituency who voted, that the petitioner were four brothers, or even statement of the neighbor of the petitioner, suggesting the same. The manner in which the investigation has been done by the Police leaves this Court satisfied that the petitioner who has been successful and elected to the Zila Parishad is simply being hounded by his detractors in the election. No useful purpose is going to be served by dismissing the present application leaving the petitioner to demonstrate during trial that he had no fourth brother when there is no whisper of a suggestion collected in the materials during investigation to that effect. The extract of the voter list is an official document having its sanctity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act with no material whatsoever to raise any doubt upon the same in the case diary of the materials collected. 3 The impugned order baldly states that there were prima facie materials against the petitioner fit for trial. This Court has already discussed the absence of any such material collected during investigation. The prosecution has to make out a prima facie case. Only then can it be considered that the materials urged to rebut the same are matters to be considered during trial. The impugned order dated 31.7.2007 is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. Entire prosecution of the petitioner under Bihar PS Case No. 211 of 2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Nalanda corresponding to G.R.No. 1281 of 2002 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)