ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 21st November 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder he has rejected the discharge application arising from G.R.No. 1645 of 2008, Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S.Case No. 310 of 2008 u/s 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC. 3. It appears from the record that an inspection was done by the Secretary, Agriculture Department, where he found that the account s were not properly maintained and Rs.2000/- has been misappropriated. On instruction the Joint Director, Agriculture vide letter dated 13th May 2008 filed the complaint in the Police stating that after 31st January 2008 account book has not been maintained properly which is violative of provisions of Bihar Finance Rules and he has given advance of Rs.2,000/- to four farmers who were declared as Kisan Shri/Kisan Bhushan without prior sanction of higher authority which amounts to misappropriation of public money on the basis of which present case has been registered. 4. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the court took cognizance. An application for discharge was filed where point has been taken that he had not misappropriated the aforesaid amount and before filing the case against him, sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was not taken. The court rejected the contention of the petitioner and refused to discharge him. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made in the FIR even if taken to be fully true, it appears on the face of the record, that it does not constitute any criminal offence, at best it can be said that a misconduct has been committed while discharging official duty, for that he can be liable for departmental proceeding. Any negligence of duty or dereliction of duty which is not culpable in nature will not constitute a criminal offence. Any negligence of duty or dereliction of duty which is not culpable in nature will not constitute a criminal offence. He has further submitted that petitioner had given the money in advance to those persons who were declared as winner of Kisan Shri/Kishan Bhushan as per the policy decision of the State Government and it cannot be said in any way he has misappropriated the amount so much so that Annexure-3 which is a letter of Principal Secretary to all the Secretaries, including other Officers of Mufasssil where it has been mentioned that every misconduct cannot be treated to be criminal offence, unless t here should be a mens rea and has a flavor of criminal offence. The authority concerned before lodging a criminal case should have examined the matter if he was satisfied, the act of negligence of duty of such a nature constitute criminal offence only then authority will be at liberty to file case straightway, should not rush to file a criminal case, when the allegation do constitute merely lapse in discharge of duty. 6. Counsel for the O.P. has submitted that the statement made in the FIR do constitute criminal offence as certainly the allegation has been made of dereliction of duty as he was required to see the proper maintenance account, if it was not, would constitute criminal offence as he was primarily responsible for the same. He further submitted that it is wrongly submitted no criminal offence is made out, the letter issued by the Principal Secretary itself shows that if dereliction of duty is grave in nature, having mens rea then the criminal case has to be lodged. 7. Having considered the rival contention of the parities, as it appears from the FIR where allegation has been made that after 31st August 2008 entries have not been made in the account book which is violative of provisions of Bihar Finance Rules as on every day it is required to maintain proper entry of credit and debit in the account book, so much so that the petitioner has wrongly given the amount of farmers. If all the facts mentioned in the FIR are taken to be true, this Court is of the view it is primarily dereliction of duty as allegation has been made of negligence of duty, having no control over the subordinates, in maintaining book of account, does not show mens rea of committing criminal offence. Merely not maintaining the accounts by subordinates without any oblique motive will not constitute any criminal offence against the petitioner who was heading the establishment. Every negligence of duty cannot constitute criminal offence unless the same is culpable in nature. It also appears that Rs.500/- was given to each four persons, as per the policy of the State, cannot constitute an offence. This Court is of the view if the facts mentioned in the FIR vis-à-vis letter issued by the Principal Secretary construed properly, primarily it appears this case has been filed in hot haste without examining the matter in depth and straightway FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the order dated 21st November 2011 is quashed and the petitioner is discharged from the case and this petition is allowed.