IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28351 of 2009 Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of village- Andauli, P.S. Saksohra, District- Patna …………. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar ………………… Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 2 15-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. While invoking the jurisdiction of this court vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25-06-2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bihar Sharif in Harnaut P.S. Case No. 147 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, he has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections-409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as well as other accused persons and transferred the case record to the court of Sri M.K. Roy, J.M. Ist Class, Bihar Sharif for trial. It would appear from Annexure-1 to this petition that Harnaut P.S. Case No. 147 of 2007 was registered for the offences under Sections-409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against six persons including the petitioner who was working as Junior Engineer at the relevant time. It would appear from Annexure-1 to this petition that the petitioner and some other accused persons were 2 made accused at the direction of the District Magistrate as they were found guilty in execution of government schemes. After investigation, the police submitted first charge sheet against two accused persons and after receipt of the first charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the above-said offences. Subsequently, the police submitted supplementary charge sheet against four persons including the petitioner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences passing impugned order against which this petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer and as a matter of fact, he discharged his duties as per official rules and there was nothing against the petitioner either in the first information report or in the entire case diary but in spite of that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying his judicial mind, passed the impugned order which is not in accordance with law as the cognizance of an offence is only taken once. In my view, the petitioner may raise all his pleas before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge and it is not an appropriate stage to interfere into the impugned order of the learned court below by exercising 3 the extra ordinary power vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. in this court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, if the petitioner raises his pleas before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial court shall consider all the pleas of the petitioner and shall pass the order on the basis of materials available before him in the case diary and other relevant documents of the prosecution without being prejudiced by this order. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)