IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47972 of 2008 SHASHI KANT SHUKLA … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur For the State:Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 3. 14.1.2009 Heard. The renewal prayer is on the ground that in spite of being in custody since 15.11.2006 the trial of the petitioner has not started. It is reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, and also by Shri D.M.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffapur, who is seized with the case, that the charges could be framed on 2.3.2007 and thereafter the petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with another pending production warrant in connection with Lalganj P.S.Case No. 58 of 2006 and since thereafter he is not being brought before the trial Magistrate for initiation of the trial proceeding. In view of the report, as indicated above, it could not be simply reasonable to 2 say that the Magistrate or the court was not interested in concluding the trial of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has not directly raised the issue as indicated above but complains of his incarceration since the above noted date. The Court could not help the situation as is obtained before the court situated at Muzaffarpur. Coming to the allegation the petitioner being the postal employee initiated a fictitious lady to whom the Money Order was directed with the proposal of paying up the money or receiving the money. In fact, there was no Money Order and document was created and the Money Order was moved in a regular manner and thereby the petitioner committed the defalcation. The lady supported the fact that she was persuaded and asked to pay back the money to the petitioner. It is not that the petitioner is the solitary mode of defalcating the Government money, if the Court could remember correctly, the petitioner initiated money orders to pay up dues for purchasing many articles required at his household and 3 those money orders were directed to the shopkeepers. One does snot know how many modes of misappropriation we could be finding in future time specially when we have having the another mode of electronics to transmit the money and receive many things. Considering the attempt and its seriousness ultimately on the Government exchequer I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner. However, it is the concern for this Court that the court at Vaishali which is seized with Lalganj P.S.Case No. 58 of 2006 is not understanding the implication of keeping the accused confined after getting him produced from another trial. The Magistrate, Vaishali, at Hajipur should conclude the case as quickly as possible and let the petitioner go to Muzaffarpur for taking justice in another case which is in connection with the present proceeding. The petition is dismissed. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Sessions Judges of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali at Hajipur so that 4 they could understand the implication of this order and see that the Magistrate concerned, specially, at Hajipur, complies the direction of this Court. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)