IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.40 of 2010 PRAKASH PURVEY @ SRI PRAKASH PURVEY, S/o. Surya Dev Purvey, Deputy Principal, Munilal Karpuri College, Laxmipur (Madhuban), P.O. Bhutahi, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Pro. Ram Shreshth Bhagat, Suspended Principal, S/o. late Ram Bilas Bhagat, r/o. Village- Mahind, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. 3. Pro. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, Lecturer Economics Department, S/o. Sri Ram Ashish Singh, r/o. Vill. Ranjitpur Kwari, P.S. Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 4. Pro. Yadavendra Kumar Gupta, Lecturer, Botani Department, S/o. not known, Mohalla- Loharpathi, P.S. + District- Sitamarhi. Present Address of all accused Munilal Karpuri College, Laxmipur (Madhuban) P.S. Bhutahi, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate. Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Manmohan Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P.: Mr. Prashun Sinha, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, Addl. P.P. ----------- 05. 09.09.2010 This application was heard at the admission stage. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed on 18th February 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. 40 of 1996/T.R. No. 1239 of 2010 whereby the O.P. Nos. 2, 3 & 4, who were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 668, 671, 406, 409 & 120B of the I.P.C. were acquitted of the charges. 2 In substance the allegation is levelled by the petitioner who happened to be the present Principal of Munnilal Karpuri College, Laxmipur (Sitamarhi), was that the O.P. No.1, Professor Ram Shreshth Bhagat was working as Principal of the college from 1988 to 1995 in which he was suspended by the Management Committee on the charge that out of five lacs as collected through donation for the establishment of the college, he, O.P. No.1 did not account for four lacs and that even after repeated notices by the Management Committee he did not appear on several dates as stated in the complaint before the Management Committee to account for the money i.e. four lacs. The learned trial-court considered several aspects of the matter in detail. It was considered that out of ten witnesses, some of whom were the members of the Management Committee, only one was examined. The complainant did not give any explanation for non-examination of nine witnesses. No member of the Management Committee was examined to testify about O.P. No.1 having disobeyed 3 the notice of the Committee by not appearing before the meeting of the Committee for the purpose of furnishing the account of money. Learned trial-court also considered that for substantiating the allegation of misappropriation it was necessary that entrustment of money should have been first established but nothing was brought to show the entrustment of money to O.P. No.1. So far O.P. No. 2 & 3 were concerned, there was no specific allegation against them. On consideration of these materials, learned trial-court came to find that the charges were not proved and accordingly acquitted O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 3 of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show any material to indicate that the findings as arrived at by the learned trial-court suffers with any infirmity. In the facts and circumstances, I find nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this application is dismissed at the stage of admission. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)