IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28096 of 2006 CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 16 23.4.2010 The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jhanjharpur in Tr.No.1893 of 2006, G.R.No.89 of 2003 arising out of Laukaha (Khutauna) P.S. Case No.18 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to discharge from the case under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 469, 120B/34 of the Penal Code was dismissed. The facts of the case briefly stated that one Arbind Kumar, B.D.O., Khutauna, Madhubani lodged a written report addressed to the Officer-In-Charge, Khatauna P.S. by his letter no.91 dated 7.2.2003 stating therein that as per the enquiry report prepared in compliance of memo no.511 dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Director, Planning of District and Rural Development, Madhubani and direction given in letter no.19 dated 6.2.2003 by the Deputy Commissioner, Madhubani a sum of Rs.20 lacs was found misappropriated. It is further alleged that the then Nazir Brahmadeo Kamat, presently posted as an Assistant at Lakhnour Block manipulated the misappropriation by making cutting and overwriting in the cash book entries between 29.3.2001 and 21.5.2001. During the relevant period one Triveni Jha and Nand Kishore Verma worked as B.D.Os, Brahmadeo Kamat as Nazir and the petitioner as Head Clerk. On the basis of the written report, Laukaha (Khutauna) P.S.Case No.18 of 2003 dated 8.2.2003 2 was instituted under the penal case stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the accounts of the Block maintained in the Central Bank that main misappropriation took place around June and July, 2000. The entry dated 15.6.2000 of the bank account of the Block would show that it had a balance of Rs.26,42,793.37 paise. A sum of Rs.4,69,769.00 was deposited on 20.6.2000. The balance amount instead of showing Rs.31,32,562.37, showed as Rs.11,32,562.37 showing a staggering difference and short fall of Rs.20,00,000.00. He further submits that the petitioner took charge on 25.1.2001 in Khutauna Block as Head Clerk and prior to his joining, the alleged manipulations were done. Further more, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and other accused person in which the former was exonerated of the charges whereas other accused persons were found guilty. The District Magistrate also in his report stated that the petitioner has not been found guilty in the departmental proceeding. He further submits that if a delinquent stands exonerated in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution becomes redundant. In criminal case the standard of proof is stricter, as prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned State counsel submits that there is sufficient materials available in paras 10,22, 25,26,34, 58,108, 140 and 152 of the case diary against the petitioner and other co-accused. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the Khatauna 3 KHAN block as Head Clerk on 25.1.2001 whereas the wrong entries in the bank account are of the month of June and July, 2000. Nevertheless, it appears that there was overwriting and cutting in the entries in the cash register, which too has been signed by the petitioner besides Brahmadeo Kamat , the then Nazir and others. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jhanjharpur in Tr.No.1893/06, G.R.No.89/03 arising out of Laukaha (Khutauna) P.S. Case No.18/03 rejecting the discharge application. The application is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)