Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2941/2016dismissed

Jai Mangal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-30Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2941 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -207 Year- 2013 Thana -DINARA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Jai Mangal Prasad Son of Late Babu Nand Jee, Resident of VillageDhobhan, P.O- Dhobhan, P.S.- Ara District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. H.A.Khan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order taking cognizance dated 25.3.2015 passed in Dinara P.S. Case No. 207 of 2013 (G.R. No. 1188 of 2013) whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 409/ 420/ 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation made in the First Information Report, for withdrawing money, the I.D. of the petitioner was used by the Sweeper of the Bank and it has been mentioned that money has been withdrawn in connivance of the petitioner. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it may be a case of dereliction and negligence of duty and it cannot be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2941 of 2016 (2) dt.30-08-2016 said that the petitioner has committed any offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2014(7) SCC

215. In that case, there is no allegation with regard to connivance and using I.D. of the bank employee. Negligence of duty is one thing but, connivance in withdrawal of money is quite different. At this stage, this Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case but, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all the points at appropriate stage.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/- U T