High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Nagendra Choubey vs State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Nagendra Choubey vs State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.41292 of 2008
Nagendra Choubey, son of Sri Haribansh Choubey, resident of Raidhasha, Custom Chowk, PS and
                               District Kishanganj - Petitioner.
                                            Versus
                                        State Of Bihar
                                           -----------

2 1.8.2011 HeardMr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner and Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P.

representing the State.

This appolication has been filed for quashing the

order, dated 22.11.2006 passed in Kishanganj PS Case No.

310/2000 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences

alleged to have been committed under sections 407, 409 and

120B/34 of the Penal Code.

The petitioner who is a Supply Inspector has been

made accused in this case making an allegation that he ought to

have inspected the shops more often which may have prevented

the P.D.S. dealers in committing the offences.

On the basis of the aforesaid facts another case was

also instituted against the petitioner being Kishanganj PS case No.

309/2000 which I have quashed on similar considerations.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far

as the petitioner is concerned, he has neither misappropriated or

has committed any offence with respect to the stocks provided to

the dealers. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was involved in the

said occurrence. The allegation against the petitioner is that he

ought to have inspected the shops more often to ensure smooth
2

functioning in the distribution of food grains allotted to the P.D.S.

dealers. At most it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.

However, it may be noted that unless there is a complaint

received by the Supply Inspector, regarding short supply or any

offence, which would come within the purview of the Essential

Commodities Act and then alone, he could have taken any steps

in the matter. As such this court finds that the implication of the

petitioner in the present case is unwarranted on a bare reading of

the First Information Report.

I accordingly quash the impugned order. This

application is allowed.

haque                                         ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)