JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this present Misc. Petition has challenged the order dated 19.11.1996 taking cognizance. By the order impugned. The learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 120-B I.P.C. for adding and abetting the Manager of the Society for committing embezzlement. Jalaram Manager of the Society has allegedly embezzled a sum of Rs. 4,33,637.16. 2. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner at that relevant time was Chairman of the Society. He might have committed violation of the bye-laws of the Society. Clause 13(1)(3) provides that the Chairman is required to sign on each and every documents written by the Society. But it cannot be said that he has committed a criminal offence. 3. It has been argued that from perusal of the audit report, the petitioner was alleged to be guilty of adding and abetting the Manager of the Society for committing embezzlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. State, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 386/92, decided on 4.4.1996) . In that case, this Court has held that there is no material to show that the Chairman was in any way responsible for alleged illegalities and irregularities in the business of the Samiti. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar. 5. Learned trial court has considered the entire material on record and after perusing the report has come to the conclusion that the record indicates that the petitioner has been instrumental in adding and abetting the Manager Jalaram for committing an act of embezzlement. Such adding and abetting comes within the definition of abatement as contained in Section 120B I.P.C. It is borne out from the record that as and when Jalaram was position, he was neither relieved nor permitted to leave against the departmental instructions. All out attempts were made by the petitioner to retain Jalaram as Manager at his place and then facilitating the embezzlement as alleged. The matter relates cognizance whatever material has been relied upon by the learned trial court it cannot be said that the order is without foundation and in this back- ground it cannot be said that any interference is called for this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, there is no force in this misc. The matter relates cognizance whatever material has been relied upon by the learned trial court it cannot be said that the order is without foundation and in this back- ground it cannot be said that any interference is called for this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, there is no force in this misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******