IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.28230 of 2008
UEMSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF YAMUNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DURGABARI, P.S. K. HAT (SAHAYAK), DISTRICT PURNEA AT THAT TIME POSTED AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER, DHAMDAHA BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF PURNEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY
For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate
Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Veena Rani Jaiswal, A.P.P.
-----------
2 21.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Petitioner was the Junior Engineer posted at
Dhamdaha in the year 1984. While he was posted at Dhamdaha, a
scheme was floated for which one Shankar Prasad Rai, the Circle
Inspector was appointed as the agent for performing certain works.
The petitioner was the person who measured the
amount of work performed by the said agent. On measuring the
work, the petitioner found that the Circle Inspector (agent) had not
constructed or completed work, the cost of which would amount
of Rs. 15,112/-. After reporting the matter, the Block
Development Officer directed the Circle Inspector to deposit the
amount along with interest. It would appear that in fact the agent
had deposited the amount.
Stating the aforesaid facts, a First Information Report
was instituted in the year 1990. Charge sheet was submitted on
17.12.2006 after a delay of 16 years.
Two submissions have been forwarded on behalf of
2
the petitioner. It is firstly submitted that no offence would be
made out under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code as far as the
petitioner is concerned as he was not responsible for executing the
work or taking the advance for execution of the work. It is
submitted that the offence of criminal breach of trust would not be
made out against the petitioner in facts of this case. This Court
finds that in fact the petitioner’s role is limited measuring the work
performed. In fact the petitioner has made a report on the basis of
which recovery of Rs. 15,112/- was made from the agent, due to
non performance of the work under the said scheme. Thus, this
Court comes to the conclusion on the basis of the aforesaid fact
that the petitioner would not be held responsible for offences
under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Besides the aforesaid facts, it may be noted that the
petitioner has been sufficiently punished in view of the fact that he
has been pursuing the matter for more than 20 years and the
charge sheet has been submitted after a great delay of 16 years.
In the facts aforesaid, the order dated 15.5.2007 taking
cognizance under Sections 409 and 418/34 of the Indian Penal
Code is quashed as far as it relates to the petitioner in Dhamdaha
P.S. Case No. 64 of 1990 (G.R. No. 636 of 1990).
This application is thus, allowed.
Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)