JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. 29.07.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. 2. This is an application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 162 of 2000 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 409/109/34 of the I.P.C. The petitioner and another are the accused. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the report submitted by the police u/s 173, Cr.P.C. after investigation on the F.I.R. dated 01.03.2000 filed by the Block Development Officer of Mahakalpada Block. 3. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the present petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Mahakalpada Block from 18.11.1996 to 23.07.1997 and in that capacity he had been given an advance of Rs. 6.00 lakhs and odd for execution of 44 project works departmentally, out of which he has adjusted a sum of Rs. 3,500/- against one project during his tenure and there was no account for the balance amount which had been received by him and he failed to furnish muster roll and vouchers in spite of repeated instructions. This defalcation was found on the basis of audit made by the Government in the year 1999. 4. Investigation was taken up and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and another under Sections 409/109/34 of the I.P.C. The charge-sheet reveals that the I.O. had the visited the spot, examined the complainant and other witnesses. He also seized 41 case records from the Block Office in question and gave the same in the zima of the B.D.O. During the course of investigation, he also arrested the accused who was subsequently released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to alleged defalcation by the petitioner, departmental proceeding was drawn up against him and during the year 2005 the Marshaling Officer (the Successor B.D.O. of Mahakalpada Block) produced a statement and some documents before the disciplinary authority to the effect that the petitioner in fact executed work during his incumbency as the Junior Engineer for an amount much more than the advance given to him and that after adjustment of the entire advance the balance amount was paid to him, and that on the basis of such materials the petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case properly and failed to collect evidence with regard to the utilization of the advance money by the petitioner and as such no charge-sheet could have been filed against the petitioner. 6. I am not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that while the petitioner left Mahakalpada Block he had not submitted any record to show that the advance money was utilized by him. Even by the time of audit, nearly two years after he left, no document was available with regard to utilization of the advance money and, therefore, the audit found the defalcation and subsequently the B.D.O. lodged the F.I.R. The record also reveals that during course of investigation the I.O. visited the spot, i.e., Block Office, examined the complainant and other witnesses and seized 41 number of case records and let them in the zima of the B.D.O. It is quite clear that even at the time of spot visit by the I.O. and seizure of the case records, there was nothing to show that money advanced to the petitioner had been utilized and accounted for. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no infirmity in the cognizance order. The subsequent production of a statement or some materials before the disciplinary authority by the successor B.D.O. has no relevance so far as taking of cognizance by the Magistrate is concerned, as it is not known under what circumstances those documents subsequently came into being and were produced before the disciplinary authority though they were not available even at the time of audit and during the time the I.O. visited the Block Office, examined the witnesses and seized some documents & case records. The petitioner was also not able to produce anything during investigation though had been arrested by the I.O., to show that there was availability of the documents with regard to utilization of the advance money. Whatever submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the defence of the petitioner. Proof with regard to the defence is to be led during trial in which the prosecution will have to get opportunity to test the genuineness of those documents. Whatever submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the defence of the petitioner. Proof with regard to the defence is to be led during trial in which the prosecution will have to get opportunity to test the genuineness of those documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mubarak Ali, and Smt. Sabita Praharaj v. Smt. Gitarani Prharaj & Others : 2004 (I) OLR 793 which relate to different steps required to be taken up by the I.O. while investigating a criminal case. I am quite satisfied that the investigation was done properly in this matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no infirmity in the cognizance order and the criminal misc. case is accordingly dismissed. 8. Since the G.R. Case is of the year 2000, it is directed that the trial Court shall take up trial and conclude the same by the end of December, 2010. Final Result : Dismissed