Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 372 (UTT)

Revadhar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner Revadhar seeks quashing of chargesheet dated 05.08.2012 and summoning order dated 03.09.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.869 of 2012, State Vs. P.C. Naithani and Another, by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. (for short 'the case') and also to quash the entire proceedings of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records. 3. The case is based on an FIR lodged on 01.01.2009. According to it, the Government Godown, Kichha was inspected and the stock was found less in quantity. A detailed inquiry was conducted by Vikram Singh Yadav, In-charge Regional Supply Officer, Kumaon Division, Haldwani and he held both P.C. Naithani and the petitioner responsible for it. It is this FIR in which after investigation at one stage, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted final report on 14.3.2003 but after hearing the parties, the final report was rejected and the Court on 17.07.2010 ordered further investigation. After further investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against petitioner and another on which cognizance was taken on 03.09.2012 and proceedings of the case instituted. It is this chargesheet, this summoning order and the proceeding of the case, which are questioned herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been chargesheeted for the offences under Section 409 IPC for which entrustment of the property is must, but, it was not done and at least it has not been shown even. Learned counsel would further submit that even if a person has some supervisory control in the office, it does not make out a case of entrustment. He referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer prior to filing of final report, in which, the witnesses namely Madan Mohan Madaan, Ram Niwas Jain and Jagdeep Arora did not say anything against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to judgment in the cases of R. Sai Bharathi vs J. Jayalalitha & Others, (2004) 2 SCC 9 and Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 . 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to judgment in the cases of R. Sai Bharathi vs J. Jayalalitha & Others, (2004) 2 SCC 9 and Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 . 6. In the case of R. Sai Bharathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that "it cannot be said that a public servant who holds a particular port folio and has an element of supervisory control in certain matters, has a dominion over the property so as to exercise any legal incidents attached to the right of ownership." 7. In the case of IOC (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment in the case of In Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri V. State of Travancore, Cochin, (1953) AIR SC 478 and quoted from it as hereunder; "To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, it is essential that the prosecution must prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be established further that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract, by the accused himself or by someone else which he willingly suffered to do. It follows almost axiomatically from this definition that the ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit." 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner is equally responsible for the offence with co- accused P.C. Naithani. 9. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). It is settled law that meticulous examination of material is not to be done in this proceeding and if prima facie case is made out, no interference is warranted. This Court does not intend to burden this judgment with case laws. The two basic principles as referred to hereinbefore which guide this Court in deciding the instant petition. 10. It is a case of criminal breach of trust by public servant. This Court does not intend to burden this judgment with case laws. The two basic principles as referred to hereinbefore which guide this Court in deciding the instant petition. 10. It is a case of criminal breach of trust by public servant. What is criminal breach of trust, has been defined under Section 405 IPC and such act by public servant is punishable under Section 409 IPC. The allegation is that on inspection, the stock was found less in quantity. It is not that only on the basis of stock verification, the FIR is filed. Petitioner himself has filed two inquiry report, one is dated 07.02.2008 which is annexure 1 to the petitioner, in which, the inquiry officer did not find any fault with the petitioner but this inquiry report was subjected to further inquiry and the second inquiry report dated 16.12.2008 is annexure 2 to the petition. While conducting the second inquiry, various factors were considered by the inquiry officer. In fact, there were entries which were allegedly false and they were signed by petitioner also alongwith P.C. Naithani. Why did petitioner signed those entries if he was not incharge of it? The co-accused was senior to the petitioner. The stock was allegedly issued to three firms M/s Madam Rise Mill, M/s Pratap Trading Company and M/s Mahesh Rice Mill. Statements of persons incharge of these firms in the first investigation did not reveal anything about the petitioner, but, when final report was rejected and the matter was further investigated, they have stated against the petitioner categorically. In fact, Ram Niwas Jain, the proprietor of M/s Pratap Trading Company have stated that his letter pad was misutilized by the petitioner. Witness Jagdish Arora and Madan Mohan Madaan in their subsequent statement to Investigating Officer have stated against the petitioner. It is not the case that the petitioner is some outsider. He was an Inspector in the department. Alongwith co-accused, he allegedly shown in the register that stock was distributed to certain firms, whereas, in fact, the stock was not distributed. It is not a case that entrustment, prima facie, is not there. A man maintaining stock register and making entries regarding distribution will do so only when he is entrusted with the property to be disbursed in a particular way. As stated, the allegation was that false entries were made and the stock was less. It is not a case that entrustment, prima facie, is not there. A man maintaining stock register and making entries regarding distribution will do so only when he is entrusted with the property to be disbursed in a particular way. As stated, the allegation was that false entries were made and the stock was less. What is its truthfulness, it has once been decided during investigation and it falls for scrutiny during trial now. Prima facie, case is made out. It cannot be said that there is no case against the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this proceeding under Section 482 of the Code and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the direction may be issued that bail application of the petitioner may be expedited. This Court has no doubt that as and when bail applications are filed, they are decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, and, for that purpose, no direction, as such, is required. 12. The petition is dismissed.