IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2745 of 2011 LAXMI NARAYAN BANJAREE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Ms. Thressiamma K.P. Annama Mathew, Advocates For the State : Shri Anant Kumar, APP --------- 2/ 28.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Misfortune is said to have never come alone and when it is on account of some fascination that some one finds himself into the dragnet of law then comes in a more compounded manner. The petitioner, an ordinary citizen, was putting on some dress which could be worn only by a person serving the Indian Army or any such outfit. He was caught in Danapur and when questioned, he was pointing out that he was serving the 17 JAK Rifles. In fact, the petitioner was caught while he was travelling in a military bogy of a particular rail whereafter he was produced before the Commanding Officer of Military Cantonment, Danapur. He was directed to be handed over through a written report before the Officer Incharge of Rail Police Station, Danapur who was registering a case under sections 419, 420 and 140 of the Indian Penal Code. Even accepting the facts to be true on their face value, this court has serious doubt about the genuine constitution of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It might be a case of cheating, it might also be a case of cheating by personation as the petitioner was not a serving unit member of 17 JAK Rifles, but 2 definitely he had not, by cheating some one, caused voluntary delivery of any property, valuable security, etc. so as to be slapped with that particular allegation of committing the offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC. Because section 420 of the IPC was on record of the case, the petitioner is languishing in prison from the very date of inception of the case, i.e. 6.7.2008. May be that the courts and officers were more aggravatingly looking at him because he was brandishing upon himself a military dress by claiming himself a military outfit. The court has no doubt about it that there could not be a constitution of any offence under section 420 of the IPC and section 419 of the IPC is an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for three years whereas that under section 140 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three months and in both cases with fine also. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years, i.e., from 8.7.2008. It was informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of framing of charges on 11.11.2008 and since thereafter there has been constantly no production of witnesses. The prayer is for quashing the proceeding. The court, considering the allegation and the facts, which are more or less admitted, is not desirous of quashing the proceeding in G.R.P. (Danapur) P.S. Case no. 26 of 2008 which might be pending before the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Patna, but is feeling inclined to direct the court below to conclude the trial within six months of receipt of the present order by passing whatever order if 3 the trial has not yet been concluded. The period of six months has to be counted from the date the court below receives a copy of the present order. The petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observation/direction. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)