IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38455 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH …petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party For the petitioner : Mr.Pramod Kumar & : Mr.Ritesh kumar For the State : Mr. Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 13.08.2010 Petitioner is facing accusation punishable under section 420 IPC and section 49 (1) (f) of the Indian Forest Act. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner only. In course of investigation, one Radhe Shayam Singh was also enmeshed in the offence and accordingly he was also made accused and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against both of them leading to the order taking cognizance. It appears that the petitioner herein filed an application dated 17.04.2007 in terms of section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short the ‘Code) seeking discharge. Similar application was filed on behalf of another co-accused, namely Radhey Shyam Singh on 30.02.2007. Both the applications have been considered and rejected by learned court below under the impugned order. It appears from the order impugned that co-accused Radheshayam Singh paid the taxes to the Governent in terms of the provision of the Bihar Finance Act. Learned trial court on a perusal of the materials placed along with the police papers including different documents attached therewith, came to the conclusion that there is/are sufficient/adequate material(s) on record justifying 2 framing of charge (s). Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order impugned on the ground that as per the FIR the godown of S.R. Freight Movers was raided by the authorities of the Commercial Taxes Department. One Lalan Prasad was found there. He disclosed the name of the petitioner as the Manager of the godown. Accordingly the petitioner was cited in the FIR itself as an accused. Referring to (Annexure-2), it is submitted that S.R.Freight Movers has different branches spread over different parts of India. The Branches also disclose the names of the Managers or persons in charge of these Branches. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner does not appear therein with respect to the Branch located at Biharsharif. On these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the order impugned. Learned counsel for the State, on the other, supported the order impugned. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. The submissions of the petitioner that brochure does not disclose the name of the petitioner as the Branch Manager may be a possible defence of the petitioner which, at the stage of framing charge, cannot be looked into and relied upon. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise the said issue by adducing appropriate evidence. On a consideration of submissions advanced on 3 behalf of the parties and after going through materials on record, this Court does not find any patent illegality and/or impropriety in the order passed by learned Magistrate. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )