Umesh Prasad Sinha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17420 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -108 Year- 2005 Thana -SIWAN CITY District- SIWAN ====================================================== Umesh Prasad Sinha Son of Late Ram Narain Prasad, resident of villageHarihans, P.S.- Hussainganj, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance dated 20th July 2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Trial No. 1838 of 2016 arising from Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 108 of 2005. In the present case, the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Siwan filed a written complaint to the Officer Incharge, Siwan Town Police Station on the basis of letter dated 29.04.2005 issued by the Collector, Siwan making allegation that the financial irregularities have been committed during period of 2003-2004 in M.L.A. quota, which was sanctioned in the name of Satyadeo Prasad Singh, Ex-M.L.A., Basantpur. The said fund was allotted to the District Engineer, Dhananjay Mani Tiwary, who was the Assistant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17420 of 2016 (3) dt.15-09-2016 2/2 Engineer, Zila Parishad, Siwan. Umesh Prasad Sinha (petitioner) was Junior Engineer, who was employee of the Rural Development Special Division, Siwan. After investigation, it was found that the several irregularities have been committed by them, as the work was sanctioned under the Scheme and the said District Engineer and the Junior Engineer with connivance of each other misappropriated Rs.7,12,074/- (Seven lacs twelve thousand and seventy four). The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material whatsoever against them and so much so that for the first time, in the history, the money has been returned to the State Exchequer. Photo copy of the case diary was produced.
From the record it appears that the amount has been returned after lodging the case, not prior to that and so much so that the case diary indicates several irregularities have been committed by them. This Court does not find any error in the order of taking cognizance. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.