IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28351 of 2009
Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra
Prasad, resident of village- Andauli, P.S. Saksohra, District-
Patna ............. Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Bihar ..................... Opposite Party.
----------------------------------
2 15-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
While invoking the jurisdiction of this court
vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has
challenged the impugned order dated 25-06-2008 passed
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bihar Sharif in
Harnaut P.S. Case No. 147 of 2007 whereby and
whereunder, he has taken cognizance for the offences
under Sections-409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471,
120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as
well as other accused persons and transferred the case
record to the court of Sri M.K. Roy, J.M. Ist Class, Bihar
Sharif for trial.
It would appear from Annexure-1 to this petition
that Harnaut P.S. Case No. 147 of 2007 was registered
for the offences under Sections-409, 420, 465, 467, 468,
470, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against six
persons including the petitioner who was working as
Junior Engineer at the relevant time.
It would appear from Annexure-1 to this petition
that the petitioner and some other accused persons were
2
made accused at the direction of the District Magistrate as
they were found guilty in execution of government
schemes.
After investigation, the police submitted first
charge sheet against two accused persons and after
receipt of the first charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance for the above-said offences.
Subsequently, the police submitted supplementary charge
sheet against four persons including the petitioner and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences passing impugned order against which this
petition has been filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was
working as Junior Engineer and as a matter of fact, he
discharged his duties as per official rules and there was
nothing against the petitioner either in the first information
report or in the entire case diary but in spite of that, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying his
judicial mind, passed the impugned order which is not in
accordance with law as the cognizance of an offence is
only taken once.
In my view, the petitioner may raise all his pleas
before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge
and it is not an appropriate stage to interfere into the
impugned order of the learned court below by exercising
3
the extra ordinary power vested under Section-482 of the
Cr.P.C. in this court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition
is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, if
the petitioner raises his pleas before the trial court at the
time of framing of the charge, the learned trial court shall
consider all the pleas of the petitioner and shall pass the
order on the basis of materials available before him in the
case diary and other relevant documents of the
prosecution without being prejudiced by this order.
AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)