Shiv Shambho Choudhary vs State Of Bihar Thru C.B.I. on 21 December, 2010

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     Cr.Misc. No.14795 of 2010
                   SHIV SHAMBHO CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE UDAY NATH
                   CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O. NEHRA, P.S.
                   MANIGACHHI, DISTT. DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT
                   OF MOHALLA PROFESSOR COLONY, GEETA BHAWAN
                   CAMPUS, P.S. TOWN, DISTT. DARBHANGA.
                                                               ------- PETITIONER.
                                                  Versus
                   THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU C.B.I., NORTH BIHAR, PATNA.
                                                -----------

For the petitioner : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv.

2. 21.12.2010 Heard the parties.

The petitioner has sought quashing of the order

dated 16.1.2010 passed by Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar,

Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 9 of 2008 (R.C.

Case No. 25(A) of 2008 by which he has refused to discharge

the petitioner.

The petitioner prayed for discharge on the ground

that the allegations are not substantiated or supported by

cogent material. Moreover, the money was not recovered from

the personal possession of the petitioner or his office or his

house. The further submission is that there is no local witness

on the point of recovery and the prosecution case is absurd.

The counsel submits that the case is absurd because on

17.10.2008 the Complainant had a grievance that the petitioner

was not disbursing the rest of the amount of the overdraft facility

but, in fact, he had withdrawn 25,000/- rupees even on the next

date. Moreover, the cheque which was recovered in the

transaction was taken from fly leaf of an account which has
2

been closed in the year 2007 itself. The petitioner also submits

that the money which was recovered was in fact, part of the

money which was to be deposited through a proper paying slip

which was recovered from the drawer of the cashier and,

therefore, it cannot be tainted money.

However, I am of the view that at the stage of

framing of charge, this Court cannot meticulously go into such

details and even if there is some dispute with regard to the

cheque which was recovered, fact remains that the money

which was recovered from the possession of the co-accused

had been accepted at the behest of the petitioner.

In view of such, the application is dismissed.

( Anjana Prakash, J.)
S.Ali