Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1683 (PAT)

Krishna Ram v. State Of Bihar And Mohan Ram

2007-10-30

SUBASH CHANDRA JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. The order under challenge is dated 21.8.2006 passed in Complaint case no. 634/ 99, Trial No. 848/06 pending in the Court of Sri Sheo Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 3.5.2005 filed on behalf of accused petitioner Krishna Ram and other petition in respect of framing of the charge against the accused, who was already facing trial for offence under Ss. 406, 409 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code have been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State have been heard. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that of course petitioner happened to be Secretary of the Jila Anusuchit Jati Vikas Sangh, Gopalganj but there is absence of any ingredient to attract Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code, which is solely applicable to a person having committed criminal beach of trust like public servant or by a banker, merchant or agent. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner is neither a public servant nor a merchant nor a banker nor attorney nor an agent. Moreover, he cannot be said to have committed any breach of trust so as to cause any wrongful loss to the institution or to have derived any wrongful gain for the aforesaid institution rather he utilized the fund for the purpose of construction of school building and wall etc. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that in the facts and circumstances the petitioner representing the aforesaid institution, which is a registered body under the Co-operative Societies Registration Act, is and was duty bound to account for maintenance and disbursement of account and for that he is facing trial. It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that trial has already commenced after framing of the charge under Ss. 406, 409 and 379 of the Indina Penal Code and so the matter should also be left open for due consideration at the final stage of trial. 6. After hearing both sides, the matter is left open for due consideration in the light of submission of both sides in the Trial Court itself and, accordingly, no interference is required. 7. The petition stands disposed of.