IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3604 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 23.4.2010 Heard Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the state. The petitioner, at some point of time, was working in Nawada Central Cooperative Bank as Auditor. The FIR related to defalcation of rupees thirty one lacs of Cooperative money by various transactions shown to have taken place in different accounts as per details given in the long typed report filed by the Managing Director of the above Cooperative Bank. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but, what turned out lastly was that while submitting charge sheet, the name of the petitioner was also quoted in the column of accused allegedly because he had held audit of the bank account on a couple of occasions, and had suppressed certain facts. The grievance of the petitioner was that there was no tangible evidence indicating that the petitioner could have audited the account of the bank or could have done anything in respect of defalcated amount of rupees thirty one lacs. It was contended that one of the officers of the Cooperative Department had also stated that the petitioner had not played any role in the whole of the affairs. It was allegedly contended that there was an investigation wing already created in the Cooperative Department and it was not 2 within the domain of the general police of Nawada district to have investigated into the case. Managing Director of the bank was the informant of the case and it is supposed that he is well versed with the procedures which were governing the transaction and other affairs of his department. The complicity of the petitioner was pointed out arising out of a letter asking him to do the audit work which was denied ever done by him. This could be a disputed question of fact which could be gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court does not find any merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)