Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 738 (JHR)

Rama Kant Das v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-10

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Prashant KumaI, J.-This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in relation to Persudih P.S. case No. 24/2002 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 2. It appears that informant being Incharge Superintendent of L.B.S.M. College, Persudih Jamshedpur lodged F.I.R alleging therein that on 22.02.2002 some students came and complain that though they deposited registration fee and examination fee, but they had not been allowed to appear in the examination for the sessions 2000-2002. It is further stated that informant made an inquiry and found that said students deposited registration and examination fee in time, but the petitioner deposited said amount in the intermediate council after five months. It is alleged that petitioner deceived aforesaid students and retained the said amount with an intention to misappropriate it. 3. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid information Persudih P.S. case no. 24/2000 under Section 406/420/ 120B/34 of the I.P.C. instituted and police took up investigation. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that as per procedure laid down by the University, it is essential for the college authorities that after collecting registration and examination fee, they deposit said amount in the University account. Thereafter, college authorities are required to make a request to the University for releasing said amount, so that the same may be deposited with Intermediate Council. It is stated that petitioner after collecting registration and examination fee from 366 students deposited entire amount, i.e. Rs. 82,394/-, in the account of Ranchi University. It is further stated that thereafter, petitioner wrote a letter to Finance Officer, Ranchi University, Ranchi on 9.12.2000 for transfer of aforesaid amount in the college account, so that same could be deposited in the Intermediate Council towards registration and examination fee of 366 students. It is further stated that in pursuance of said letter, Ranchi University transferred the said amount on 20.12.2000, thereafter, bank draft prepared on 13.01.2001 and said draft deposited in the Intermediate Council Office on 15.1.2001. 5. Sri B.P. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that petitioner did not retain aforesaid amount for a single day. Under the said circumstance, question of misappropriation and/or commission of criminal breach of trust of aforesaid amount, even for temporary period, does not arise. 5. Sri B.P. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that petitioner did not retain aforesaid amount for a single day. Under the said circumstance, question of misappropriation and/or commission of criminal breach of trust of aforesaid amount, even for temporary period, does not arise. Thus, he submits that offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is not made out. It is specifically submitted at paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit that all the students, in whose favour admit cards have not been issued earlier, have already appeared in the examination for the session 2000-02 and there is no academic loss to the students. Thus, question of deceiving any student does not arise. Hence no offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. 6. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned standing counsel opposed the writ application. 7. Having heard the submissions. I have gone through the records of the case. 8. It appears that University laid down a procedure for deposit of registration and examination fee. It then appears that at the first instance, money collected towards registration and examination fee, are require to be deposited in University account. known as "A" account. Thereafter University transfer said amount in the college account for preparation of bank draft in the name of Intermediate Council and for depositing it in the office of Intermediate Council. Petitioner made averments at Paragraph Nos. 6.7.8.9.10.12 of the writ application that he has deposited the said amount to the Intermediate Council through bank draft on 15.1.2001 after following aforesaid procedure laid down by the University. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that petitioner has not retained any amount collected towards registration and examination fee. Thus, in my view, question of misappropriation of said amount does not arise. Accordingly, I find that offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is not made out. 10. It is stated at paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit that all the 74 students, to whom earlier admit cards were not issued, have already appeared in the examination for the session 2000-02 and there is no academic loss to said students. This fact has also not been denied by the respondents. 10. It is stated at paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit that all the 74 students, to whom earlier admit cards were not issued, have already appeared in the examination for the session 2000-02 and there is no academic loss to said students. This fact has also not been denied by the respondents. It is worth mentioning that notice issued to Intermediate Council but Intermediate Council neither appeared nor filed any reply. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that petitioner had not deceived any student, thus, offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is also not made out. 12. In view of discussions made above, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceeding in relation to Persudih P.S. case No. 24/2002 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistratem, Jamshedpur. Application allowed.