Lokesh Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.” In order to appreciate the rival stands of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the background facts in a greater detail.

The appellant was posted as Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC') during the period November, 1996 to November,1997 in the Office of District Literacy Education Officer, Dausa. On 4th January, 2000, the District Literacy Education Officer, Dausa registered a First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') in Police Station, Dausa alleging therein that when the appellant was posted as LDC-cum-Cashier, a financial irregularity was committed by him. As per the report of Auditor General, an embezzlement of Rs.4,39,617/- has been discovered. The original copies of the bills and documents were available in the office of the Auditor General and in the office of Directorate for the State Literacy Programme. Therefore, on the basis of report given by the Auditor General, the FIR was filed.

On the basis of report submitted by the complainant, the Police lodged FIR No.10/2000 of the incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1996- 1997, implicating appellant as an accused. After making investigation, the Police submitted a final report in the matter on 2nd June,2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as the, “CJM, Dausa”) During the pendency of the matter before the CJM, Dausa, the complainant filed an application on 18th November, 2000 before the CJM, Dausa requesting therein to send back the matter to the Police for further investigation. The CJM, Dausa vide order dated 18th November, 2000, sent back the matter to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. Since then the matter remained pending with the police. According to the appellant, he met as well as represented on a number of times to the Police Authorities and the Departmental Authorities but still no action has been taken by the Authorities. Neither final report is submitted nor the challan is being filed and the matter is pending since then. Earlier in the final report, it was stated that the Police informed that the original copies of the bills and another documents are not available, therefore, no investigation could be made.

The State of Rajasthan has filed counter affidavit. According to them, the investigation is still continuing and the appellant himself is delaying the same due to non-cooperative attitude adopted by him. In any case, from the investigation carried out till now, offence under Section 409 IPC is clearly made out against the appellant and on this ground alone, the petition seeking quashing of FIR is liable to be dismissed and the legal process deserves to be taken to a logical end.

20. In Vakil Prasad Singh(supra) one search operation was conducted by the office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department (Vigilance), Muzaffarpur, on the basis of a complaint lodged by a civil contractor against the accused, an Assistant Engineer in the Bihar State Electricity Board (Civil) Muzaffarpur, for allegedly demanding a sum of Rs.1000 as illegal gratification for release of payment for the civil work executed by him. The case was instituted on 8th April, 1981 and the charge- sheet for aforesaid offences was filed against the accused on 28th February, 1982. The Magistrate took cognizance on 9th December,1982 but nothing substantial happened. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC before the Patna High Court against the order passed by the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur taking cognizance of the said offences, on the ground that the Inspector of Police, who had conducted the investigations, on the basis whereof the charge-sheet was filed, had no jurisdiction to do so. Accepting the plea, the High Court by its order dated 7th December, 1990 quashed the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and directed the prosecution to complete the investigation within three months. However, no further progress was made and the matter rested there till 1998, when the accused filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, giving rise to the appeal before this Court.

(6) This is an appropriate occasion to remind the Union of India and the State Governments of their constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary — quantitatively and qualitatively — by providing requisite funds, manpower and infrastructure. We hope and trust that the Governments shall act.”

Hence FR No.67/2000 is being filed for kind perusal and acceptance because of insufficient evidence.”

Hence u/s 156(3) Cr.PC the SHO Dausa is directed to re-investigate the case with the assistance of Sh. Murari Lal literacy and mission education officer to procure the original records. Final report is not accepted, case diary is being returned.

Sd/- CJM District: Dausa, Dausa”

In the light of the said evidence (P-2) (P-3) the first part of the offence (1), the offence of embezzlement of amount by withdrawing the amount of said bills from the banks could not establish the guilt of the Delinquent Officer Shri Lokesh Kumar Jain. Hence the part of the offence is not established in respect of the accused.

2. The entry of the Bills of F.V.C. amounting to Rs.2,96,100/- is found in the Bill Register, Encashment Register and Books of account:-

3. Embezzlement of the amount of Rs.78,179/- by withdrawing the bills of the other department in the head of Literacy and Education in the Budget.

CONCLUSION:

34. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the FIR No.10/2000 lodged in Police Station, Dausa as against the appellant is hereby quashed.