Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 12]

Patna High Court - Orders

Hiremagalur Parthsarthy Shamalah @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 June, 2009

Author: Abhijit Sinha

Bench: Abhijit Sinha

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CR. REV. No.138 of 2006
 Hiremagalur Parthsarthy Shamalah @ H.P.Shamala @ A.Shyamla
 D/O Parthasharthi Shamla, Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya
 Vidyalaya Samiti, Regisional Office , 270 , Senapati Rapat Marg,
 Pune-16 ( Maharastra).                ------------- Petitioner
                              Versus

 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
 2. Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jitendra Singh, resident of
    Mohalla- Gajadharganj, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar
                                --------------  Opp.Parties.
                           -----------
                             WITH
                CR. REV. No.140 of 2006

 Kshitish Chandra Das @ K.C.Das Son of Late Gangadhar Das,
 Assistant Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional
 Office,Nongrim Hills, Shillong        ------  Petitioner
                               Versus

 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
 2. Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jitendra Singh, resident of
    Mohalla- Gajadharganj, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar
                                ----------------  Opp.Parties.
                          -----------

For the petitioners : M/S Y.V.Giri , Sr. Advocate, and
                           Shailendra Kr.Singh ( in both cases).
For the State      : (i) Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P.
                                   ( Cr.Rev.138 of 2006)
                     (ii)    Mr. R.B.S. Pahepuri, A.P.P.
                                   Cr.Rev.No.140 of 2006)
For Opp.Party no.2: M/S Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate,and
                          Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate (In both cases)

                            ------------
                            ORDER

          Both these cases were directed to be heard together with

 Cr.W.J.C.No.613 of 2007 since the two revision petitions arise out of

 the same Complaint Case No.1751(C) of 2005 and the writ petition

 arises out of Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No.82 of 2005 by one of the

 accused of the complaint case, namely, P.S. Kansal in respect of the

 same cause of action. . However, the two revisions were heard
                        -2-




on 22.10.2008, whereas the writ petition was heard separately on

10.12.2008 and in my opinion since the matter involved are not the

same, I am of the opinion that the order in the writ petition is required

to be passed independently and separate from the orders in the

revisions. In the aforesaid circumstances while separate orders shall be

passed in respect of Cr.W.J.C.No.613 of 2007, this order shall govern

the two revisions which have been heard together on 22.10.2008.

             The petitioner of Cr.Revision No.138 of 2006 and the

petitioner    of Cr.Revision No.140 of 2006, namely, Hiremagalur

Parthsarthy Shamala @ H.P.Shamla @ A Shyamla and Kshitish

Chandra Das @ K.C.Das respectively, both of whom along with

others have been made to figure as accused in the aforesaid complaint

petition , have by the two revisions    prayed for the quashing of the

order dated 18.1.2006 passed in the aforesaid complaint case by the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Patna , whereby their

petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

             The aforesaid complaint was filed by one Pramod Kumar

Singh, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 in both the revisions , inter alia

alleging commission of overt acts by the twelve persons, all except

one, being officials of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, posted at various

places, arrayed as accused. The allegation therein is that one Ashraf

Ali, accused no.11, was illegally appointed       as T.G.T. ( Sc.) at

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Bikram ,Patna by remaining accused

persons in connivance and in conspiracy with each other by means of
                      -3-




forgery and manufacturing documents and thereby making wrongful

gain for themselves and causing wrongful loss to the government

exchequer and also committing deceit and the appointment letter was

allegedly under the forged signature of the Dy.Director, D.S. Singh. It

is further alleged that the forged letter of appointment of Ashraf Ali

was detected in 1998 by the Assistant Director , R.K.Sharma , who

brought it to the notice of Shamshul Haque , Dy. Directory, at the time

of confirmation of service of appointed teachers who had completed

two years of service, but the Dy.Director did not take any notice of

the matter and issued orders for his confirmation with other teachers.

It is further alleged that the issue of illegal appointment was raised

time and again in the year 2000-2001 with Dr. Hazarika as the Dy.

Director and K.C. Das as Assistant Director when seniority of T.G.T

(Sc.) was under preparation. The matter was referred to the

headquarter at New Delhi , wherefrom orders for terminating the

services of Ashraf Ali after completing necessary formalities were

issued but the Regional Office at Patna sat tight over the same. It is

said that in the meantime, Dr. Hazarika got transferred and his

successor H.P. Shamla took over charge as Dy.Director. It is also said

that in the meanwhile said Ashraf Ali got best teacher's award of

'Guru Ratna' with the blessings of the officials of the Regional Office

and Headquarters at Delhi and the order of termination remained

unattended. It is said that K.C Das,     the Assistant Director at the

Regional Office,Patna , in connivance with others managed things and

having obtained      the consent of Shyamla recommended            the
                       -4-




regularization of illegal appointee Ashraf Ali. On the aforesaid

premise, the allegation of the complainant is that all the accused

persons including the two revisionists have committed offences under

Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C.

          Assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the

learned counsel for the revisionists that the two revisionists on receipt

of summons appeared and filed petitions under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

for dispensing with their personal appearance and to be represented

through this counsels. The ground taken by Shyamla for dispensing

with her personal appearance was that she was presently posted at

Pune as Dy. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti , Regional

Office and looks after three States of Maharashtra ,Goa and Gujrat

and her nature of work being that of superintendence/inspection , she

has to undertake several tours and visits to the institutions in those

three States and in the circumstances it would not be possible for her

to attend the court on each and every date. The ground taken by K.C.

Das for dispensing with his personal appearance was that he was

presently posted at Shillong as Assistant Commissioner , Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti , Regional Office and looks after seven States of

Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim , Arunachal Pradesh , Mizoram

and Tripura and nature of duty being identical to that of Shyamla ,he

was also required to undertake several tours and visits to the

institutions of the seven States and in the circumstances, it was

difficult for him to attend the court on each and every date. Both the

petitioners had given undertaking to be personally present in the court
                       -5-




as and when so directed by the court. However, their difficulties did

not impress upon the court who appears to have rejected their petitions

on the twin grounds of cognizance having been taken and the offences

being non-bailable.

          By way of a supplementary affidavit filed in Cr.Revision

No.138 of 2006 , it was sought to be impressed that co-accused Dr.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma had filed Cr.W.J.C.No.115 of 2006 and by

order dated 20.12.2006 a Bench of this Court quashed the aforesaid

complaint case so far as the petitioner was concerned taking into

account the fact that the allegation so far as     the petitioner was

concerned is false and concocted in asmuch as the said petitioner

was never posted at Navodaya Vidyalaya prior to 2001 . The said

order also took into account the fact that two other co-accused,

namely, Parmatama Sharam Kansal           and Man Mohan Swaroop

Khanna      had also succeeded         in similar terms by filing

Cr.W.J.C.No.587 of 2005 and Cr.W.J.C.No.31694 of 2006, disposed

of on 6.12.2005 and 20.11.2006 respectively.

          Opp.Party no.2 has appeared to contest the revision

application and though no counter affidavit or show cause has been

filed, oral submissions have been made to justify the impugned order

rejecting the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

          The law is now well-settled in respect of petition under

Section 205 Cr.P.C. and though the power is discretionary, the court

has to consider whether any useful purpose would be served by

requiring personal attendance of the accused or whether progress of
                        -6-




the trial is likely to be hampered on account of their absence . It is also

the well-settled law that where the persons are busy executives who

have to move at various places of the country , such matters when an

undertaking    to be present in court is given ,        should be given

preference.In Jayant Dang Vrs. State of Bihar , reported in 2004 (4)

PLJR 25 , it was held that the power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is to

be considered in a reasonable manner and no hard and fast rule could

be laid down and at the same time the court should be liberal in

granting exemption from personal appearance except where serious

issues or allegations of moral turpitude are involved . Nature of

allegation, conduct of accused, inconvenience in personal appearance

are the relevant considerations for deciding the question of exemption

of personal appearance and even after issuance of warrant the court

may dispense with personal appearance in exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. if a proper case is made out for the ends of

justice.

           In the instant case, the revisionists are high officials posted

at Pune and Shillong respectively while trial is to be conducted at

Patna and the inconvenience caused to them by insisting upon their

personal appearance in court on each and every date does not appear

to have been considered in the impugned order rejecting the prayer

for dispensing with personal appearance ,moreso when both of them

have given undertaking to be physically present in court when so

ordered by the court.Although the court has taken the view that

cognizance has been taken and the offences alleged are non-bailable
                       -7-




those by themselves cannot be reasons for rejecting the prayer under

Section 205 Cr.P.C.

           In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the revisions

are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the two

revisionists for dispensing with their personal appearance under

Section 205 Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside.

           As stated above, separate orders shall be pronounced in the

writ petition.


                                           ( Abhijit Sinha, J )
Patna High Court,Patna
Dated : the 30th June,2009

Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.