Rajendra Pandit v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18077 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1821 Year- 2008 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- ARRARIA ====================================================== RAJENDRA PANDIT S/O LATE MAHDEO PANDIT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAJNI CHOWK, PURNEA, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTRICTPURNEA. .... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. GAJADHAR CHAUDHARY S/O PANCHANAND CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGERAHIKPUR, P.S.- JAUKIHAT, DISTRICT- ARARIA.
.... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neerad Parashar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 13-07-2015 In spite of personal service, opposite party no.2/ complainant has not turned up.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Petitioner has challenge order dated 25.12.2008 whereby and whereunder he along with other has been summoned to face trial for trial for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 of the IPC on an allegation that with the active connivance of other co-accused, misappropriate a sum of Rs.96,000, the loan amount which has been shown to be sanctioned in favour of complaint along with witnesses. At the present moment petitioner has put much stress over Annexure-3 transfer letter, whereunder petitioner, who was posted at Sisuana Branch as Manager, was transferred to Bidupur Branch on 13.04.2006. It is also
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18077 of 2013 (3) dt.13-07-2015 apparent therefrom that he was directed to join positively by 17-04-2006. Certainly, by Annexure-3 petitioner has advanced his plea of alibi and that happens to be matter of trial because of the fact that detailed informant would come during trial on the score whether loan amount was sanction in his tenure as well as misappropriated during his tenure. Apart from this, at the stage of taking of cognizance defence of accused cannot be looked as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424.
Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is found nonmaintainable in the eye of law and consequent thereupon instant petition is rejected.
At the present moment it has also been submitted on behalf of petitioner that, in spite of granting so many adjournments, none of the prosecution witness including complainant himself is turning up for evidence before charge. That being so, the learned lower court will consider the same and in case, there happens to be negligence at the part of the complainant, then in that event the learned lower court will pass appropriate order under section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. without being prejudiced by the instant order. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN/- U T