Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 339 (JHR)

Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar

2012-03-06

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.8.99 passed by S.D.J.M. Hazaribagh in Hazaribagh Sadar P.S.case no.379(9)/92 corresponding to T.R.No. 258/99 whereby application of petitioner for discharge has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by Mr. B.M.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is absolutely no material from which it can be presumed that petitioner's firm committed offence under section 409/419/420 read with section 120B of the I.P.C. 3. It is submitted that co-accused Shamsher Prasad Singh and Anwar Prasad Jaiswal had placed order for supply of N.T.C. Clothes in different schools. It is submitted that criminal proceeding against aforesaid two officers of Welfare Department has already been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2012 in Cr.Misc. No. 926/2000 because there was no sanction order to prosecute them. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that petitioner's firm hatched conspiracy with aforesaid two accused persons for causing loss to State Exchequer. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that petitioner's firm supplied clothes as per agreement. Thus, offence under sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. is also not made out. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. after going through F.I.R. and case diary had not disputed that petitioner supplied clothes as ordered by co-accused. It is also not disputed that petitioner's firm is a dealer of N.T.C. Clothes. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case as well as case diary. 6. It is alleged that co-accused Shamsher Prasad Singh gave order to petitioner's firm for supply of N.T.C. clothes in violation of circular issued by State Government. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that though petitioner's firm is dealing in N.T.C. clothes, but it has not been authorised to supply clothes in Government department. Aforesaid fact does not appears to be correct in view of statements made in paragraph no. 29 of the case diary, where it is clearly mentioned that petitioner's firm is an authorised dealer of N.T.C. clothes and it has been authorised to supply clothes to various departments of the State Government. 7. From perusal of case diary, I find that there is no evidence to show that petitioner's firm hatched conspiracy with other co-accused with a view to put loss to State Exchequer. 7. From perusal of case diary, I find that there is no evidence to show that petitioner's firm hatched conspiracy with other co-accused with a view to put loss to State Exchequer. It has not been disputed that criminal proceeding against other co-accused, who are Government servant, has already been quashed for non-compliance of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that no offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. It is admitted that petitioner supplied clothes as per order given by Welfare Department. Thus, in my view offence under Sections 419/420 of the I.P.C. is also not made out. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and quash impugned order dated 23.8.99 as well as criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 379(9)792 corresponding to T.R. No. 258/09 pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Hazaribagh.