Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 167 (JHR)

Vijay Bhushan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-01

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Judgment D.K.Sinha,J. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 15.06.2009 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge was rejected by Shri Daya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in T.R.No. 1058 of 2009 arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 62 of 2008 for the alleged offence under Sections 406/409/420/379 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant Shri Shankar Das, Block Extension Education Officer, Dungri presented a written report before Dungri Police on 10.11.2008 stating, inter alia, that pursuant to the information received from the witness Barkat Ali, Raj Kumar Pandey, Jag Narayan Mahato and other villagers that the rice kept in the bags in Dungri Middle School had been stolen, he apprised the fact to the B.D.O., who directed the informant to lodge an F.I.R. The informant visted the said school and found that in place of 12 bags of rice kept for nutrition (Poshahar) for the children of the said school, 4 bags of rice were removed and substituted with bags filled with sand and only 6 bags containing rice were found there. It was alleged that the Incharge Head Master Ravi Shankar Mahato who was the Secretary of Gram Shikcha Samiti was holding key of the Store Room and it was alleged that Md. Faraz, the President of Gram Shikcha Samiti was also involved in such mischief. The allegation against the petitioner Vijay Bhushan Kumar in the F.I.R. was that he was in possession of the key of the school and in this manner though the petitioner was implicated but the F.I.R. was lodged only against Md. Faraz and Ravi Shankar Mahato i.e the President and the Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samittee respectively. The written report of the informant contained the explanation of the petitioner Vijay Bhushan Kumar that no entrustment of the key of the Stock Room was made to him. 3. On the basis of the written report presented by the informant, the offence was registered under Sections 406/409/420/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against the petitioner and Md. 3. On the basis of the written report presented by the informant, the offence was registered under Sections 406/409/420/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against the petitioner and Md. Faraz i.e the President of Gram Shiksha Samittee under Sections 406/409/420/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Head Master Ravi Shankar Mahato was not sent up for trial as no material was found about his complicity in the instant case. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet without collecting any material against the petitioner in the case diary. Admittedly, the petitioner was a teacher in Dungri Middle School and by the letter dated 04.10.2008 in view of the Assembly Election, requisition was made to the Education Department for sending the teachers for preparation of electoral roll and in that connection the petitioner was relieved by the Head Master for preparation of the electoral roll with effect from 16.10.2008 to 24.11.2008. A certificate to that effect was issued to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner stood at Sl. No. 47 in the list of the teachers, who were deputed in the work of preparation of the electoral rolls. The Counsel explained that during the period of deputation the occurrence as alleged took place and the petitioner was neither present in the school nor he was connected in any manner either with the key of the school gate or with the key of the Stock Room for such period where rice were kept for children. 5. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not at all responsible for any irregularity committed in maintenance of the stock of the rice being the food for school children with reference to the circular issued by the Department of Human Resources and Development ( Directorate of Primary Education) Government of Jharkhand dated 22.11.2008 the Counsel explained that the Head Master/ Block Extension Education Officer have been made solely responsible for any untoward incidence or similar nature of occurrence. 6. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the occurrence alleged took place on 10.11.2008 as the sand bags were found in place of the rice bags whereas notification of the Government was made much after on 21.11.2008 with the prospective effect as such the petitioner being the teacher of the school would not be protected under such notification. 7. Advancing his argument, the learned A.P.P. further submitted that the witnesses in their statements recorded in paragraph Nos. 7,8,9,10,11,12 & 37 of the case diary were consistent about the complicity of this petitioner and the co-accused Md. Faraz who were the holders of the key of the stock room where rice bags used to be kept and therefore, in view of sufficiency of materials against the petitioner and the co-accused, the petitioner did not deserve discharge. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, perusal of the case diary, I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate by a detailed order dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioning the material contained in the case diary and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to show any fresh ground so as to call for interference therein. 9. There being no merit, accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to stand charged on the date fixed.