Allahabad High Court
Rama Kant Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 25 September, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1285 of 2019 Revisionist :- Rama Kant Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track/A.C.J.M., Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.3511 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2010 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409 IPC, Police Station Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. Charge-sheet has been filed after investigation the FIR registered at Case Crime No.92 of 2010, Police Station Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar against the revisionist under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409 IPC. Initially, the revisionist challenged the FIR and thereafter, he challenged the charge-sheet but this Court has not interfered either with the FIR or charge-sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge.
3. Allegations against the revisionist are that he was given the charge of the Principal in the year 2009. The revisionist was handed over the relevant documents of the College, Jairam Janta Ucchtar Madhyamik School, Ram Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar by the outgoing Principal.
4. This Court in Writ Petition No.7890(SS) of 2009 filed by the revisionist directed the District Inspector of Schools to make an inquiry into the matter in regard to missing of the records which were received by the revisionist allegedly from the outgoing principal.
5. In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7890(SS) of 2009, the D.I.O.S. conducted an enquriy. Enquiry report of the D.I.O.S. has been placed on record as Annexure-33 to the petition whereby the D.I.O.S. has specifically stated that the revisionist after receiving the records from the outgoing Principal, kept them in the Almirahs and went on leave. Three Almirahs of the College were broken open in presence of Tehsildar Aalapur, Ambedkar Nagar, Assistant Basic Education Officer, Ram Nagar, Sub-Inspector Police Station Aalapur. The records found in these almirahs, were indexed and handed over to the Manager of the College. It was also said that some of the records were found missing from the records which were received from the outgoing Principal.
It was also said that the revisionist was eligible to be appointed as Principal of the College, however, the Manager of the College had suspended the revisionist on 20.11.2009. The suspension was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 21.12.2009.
6. It appears that the revisionist being aggrieved by the action of the Manager in not appointing him as ad-hoc Principal, did not hand over all the documents and because of that the College suffered inasmuch as salary of the employees working in the office could not be paid as the bill for that was not sent by the Manager. An FIR, therefore, came to be registered at Case Crime No.92 of 2010.
7. The investigating officer after investigating the offence had submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409 IPC. Cognizance was taken on 23.07.2010 on the aforesaid charge-sheet. The revisionist did not apply for bail. The Trial Court after considering the relevant case-laws, has come to the conclusion that at the stage of taking cognizance,what is relevant is to see whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. The Trial Court has found prima facie case against the revisionist and, therefore, after taking cognizance he has been summoned under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409 IPC. It has also been said that the defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of considering the application for discharge.
Considering all these aspects the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.07.2019.
8. Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the FIR is nothing but a mala fide act of the complainant and the Manager. The Manager does not want the revisionist to assume charge of ad-hoc Principal in the College. Initially, he was suspended and, thereafter, FIR was registered on which the charge-sheet has been filed. He further, submits that no case is made out against the revisionist and charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence to substantiate the charge.
9. I have considered the submissions carefully.
10. None other than the D.I.O.S. in his enquiry conducted in pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7890(SS) of 2009 filed by the revisionist, has found the revisionist guilty of misappropriation of the important documents of the College. The revisionist has no business to keep the documents in his custody after he was suspended. It was incumbent upon him to return those documents to the Management ones he was suspended. Instead of handing over those documents, he kept them in the Almirahs and locked the almirahs. All the documents which were handed over to the revisionist by the out going Principal, were not found. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the revisionist inasmuch as this Court cannot consider the evidence to find out that whether the charge under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409 IPC against the revisionist would be made out or not. The revisionist at the time of framing of charge has right to put forth his submissions that on the basis of the evidence and material available on record the charge for particular offence is not made out.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Trial Court in Case No.3511 of 2018. This petition is dismissed, however, it would be open to the revisionist to urge before the Trial Court at the time of framing of the charge that particular offence is prima facie not established against the accused and, therefore, charge should not be framed. The trial Court will take into account the material/evident to be placed by the accused which is of unimpeachable character and sterling quality.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 prateek