IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45167 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Das @ Ashok Lal Das son of Sri Kameshwar Lal Das, resident of Mohalla-Bhatta Bazar, Police Station-K. Hat ( Sahayak Khazanchi), District-Purnea. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sri Dilip Kumar Mehta Son of late Musai Lal Mehta, Mantri, Sarvodaya Ashram, Khadi Gramodyog Bibhag, Ranipatra, Police Station- Mufassil, District-Purnea. ----------- 02. 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2008 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 406, 409, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was Manager of Sarvodaya Ashram, Khadi Gramodyog, Ranipatra, at Purnea. The informant of this case sold lands belonging to the society. The petitioner made a complaint to the Collector and to the Central Body. However, both the aforesaid authorities did not take any action against the informant. Thereafter the informant has filed the present case alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the money of the Ashram. The impugned order indicates that the court has considered paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary and photocopies of the Audit Report submitted by the informant in the court below. It is well settled that while taking cognizance, the court below cannot rely on any document except the case diary. The C.J.M. while referring to paragraph in the case diary should at least indicate the contents of those paragraphs. The High Court has no 2 way of knowing what are reasons for taking cognizance, especially in a case where the court below has differed with the final form, submitted in a particular case. Both the points raised by the petitioner are well established by decisions of this Court. Normally, this Court would have issued notice to the informant before passing an order, since this is state case the informant is well represented by the counsel appearing for the State, besides which the informant get full opportunity to place his points before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In view of the facts aforesaid, this Court is quashing the order dated 28.07.2008 passed in G.R. No. 1816 of 2007 arising out of K. Hat (Sahayak Khazanchi) P.S. Case No. 249 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the court below within a period of one month, of its receipt, failing which this application shall stand dismissed. The court below is directed to pass an order in accordance with law after hearing the informant, after valid service of notice on informant, within the period of two months. Devendra ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)