Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 482 (CAL)

HASANUZZAMAN KHADIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-08-04

SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA

body2006
( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 101 of 1995 arising out of Bolpur P. S. Case No. 56 of 1995 dated 15/3/1995 under Section 406 of the I. P. C. pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Bolpur. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that Bolpur P. S. Case No. 56 of 1995 dated 15/3/1995 was started on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the Officer-in-Charge, Madhyamik Examination, 1995, Bolpur Centre with the o/c Bolpur P. S. alleging commission of the offence under Section 406 of the i. P. C. It was alleged in the said complaint to the effect that the petitioner, who was appearing in the Madhyamik Examination, left the examination hall on 15/3/1995 without submitting the answer script of Mathematics. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the said complaint, the police case was started. It was investigated and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 406 of the I. P. C. ( 4 ) ON 14. 5. 2001 the learned Magistrate was pleased to frame the charge against the accused/petitioner under Section 406, I. P. C. and fixed a date for recording of evidence. ( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that over the aforesaid incident the Moral practice Enquiry Sub Committee of the Board, cancelled the examination of the petitioner for the year 1995 and further de-barred the petitioner from appearing in the Madhyamik Examination for the year 1996. According to the petitioner, inspite of that there was no necessity for proceeding with the said criminal case as the petitioner was already punished due to his misconduct. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has also claimed that the learned Magistrate, without applying his mind, was pleased to frame the charge under Section 406, I. P. C. , which is no way applicable, so far as the petitioner is concerned and as such the petitioner has preferred this revisional application for quashing of the entire proceeding as according to him, continuation of the same will be an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 7 ) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. ( 7 ) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that in this case there is no question of any criminal breach of trust, as it cannot be said that any property was entrusted in favour of the petitioner by the Board. According to him, the petitioner did not cause any wrongful loss to anybody due to his act. He further argued that if any loss is caused by the petitioner that has been caused to himself, as because he did not gain anything by not depositing the answer script with the Hall Authority. ( 8 ) AS such, the learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that it is palpably clear that there is no prima-facie material for framing a charge under section 406, I. P. C. against the petitioner and so the entire proceeding should be quashed. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Kasem Ali Ahmed, learned Advocate for the State argued that in this case charge has already been framed and the case is fixed for recording of evidence. As such, he submits that the learned court below should be allowed to complete the trial and the prayer for quashing should be rejected outright. ( 10 ) I have considered the above submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the case, as started against the petitioner has got some peculiar features. It is the case of the complainant that accused/petitioner did not deposit the answer script with the Hall Authority. By not depositing the said answer script, it is very much doubtful as to whether he has committed any criminal breach of trust. True it is that the said answer script was given to the petitioner by the school authority. But at the same time we cannot ignore the position that the said answer script belonged to the student i. e. the petitioner himself. In order to commit a criminal breach of trust, it is to be established that the person concerned did such act with the intention to cause loss to any particular person in order to gain something. But so far as present case is concerned, it cannot be said that accused/petitioner gained anything by not submitting the answer script to the proper authority. But so far as present case is concerned, it cannot be said that accused/petitioner gained anything by not submitting the answer script to the proper authority. If he has caused loss to anybody then it was the loss which was caused to the petitioner himself and to none else. So the question of committing breach of trust, in my considered opinion, does not lie at all against the petitioner. That apart, it appears from Annexure "d" of the revisional application that by the letter dated 29/8/1995 the West Bengal Board of secondary Education cancelled the examination of the petitioner/accused for the year 1995 and he was de-barred from appearing in the Madhyamik examination for the next year i. e. in the year 1996. So the accused/petitioner, appears to have been already punished due to his misdeed by the Board and i think that it is not desirable that he should be prosecuted again in a criminal court for the alleged offence of committing criminal breach of trust. No purpose will be served in proceeding with the said criminal case excepting that future of the petitioner/accused may be disturbed to a great extent for the deed which was committed, possibly without knowing its implication. Since he has already been adequately punished for his misdeed, which was certainly against his interest, I think that further continuation of the criminal case before the Court below against the accused/petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court and I have got no hesitation to hold that it is a fit case where the entire proceedings should be quashed and the accused should be discharged. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revisional application succeeds on contest. The proceeding of G. R. case No. 101 of 1995, arising out of Bolpur P. S. Case No. 96 of 1995, as is pending in the Court of SDJM, Bolpur is quashed. The accused/ petitioner be discharged from bail bond forth with.