SHANTI SWAROOP MAHAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-6-56
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 22,2012

Shanti Swaroop Mahar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH,J - (1.) . (Oral) 1. A belated counter affidavit has been filed by the State, which though has been kept with the record, but no cognizance thereon has been taken.
(2.) VIRENDRA Singh Mahar was, at the relevant time, the Principal of the College. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 925 of 2005, Pareshwar Prasad Bhatt complained that Virendra Singh Mahar is withdrawing salaries of an This Court, by an order dated 26th Assistant Teacher fraudulently. October, 2005, directed a report in respect of such allegation to be filed. Such a report was filed, when it was reported that Smt. Sarita Pundir, D/o Virendra Singh Mahar was appointed as Assistant Teacher and she was drawing salaries and such salaries were being deposited in her account directly and, accordingly, the allegation that Virendra Singh Mahar was withdrawing the salaries payable to one Assistant Teacher is untrue. The report to that extent was accepted by the writ court by an order passed on 22nd April, 2006, which has reached its finality. In the year 2006, a First Information Report was filed against Virendra Singh Mahar, Smt. Sarita Pundir and Shanti Swaroop Mahar, who was then the Manager of the College. In that, it has been alleged that, in law, a relative of a member of the Managing Committee of the College could not be appointed and appointment of Smt. Sarita Pundir, D/o Virendra Singh Mahar, Principal of the College and a member of the Managing Committee, having been made, the same was made with an object of committing such crimes, which are punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That First Information Report has led to investigation, which in turn, has resulted in filing of a charge-sheet, cognizance whereon has been taken and, aggrieved thereby, the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed.
(3.) THE basic contention is this that, on the basis of the report referred to above and accepted by this Court, the purported crime has been exonerated. I am unable to accept the same, inasmuch as, the Court directed a report to be filed in relation to the allegation whether Virendra Singh Mahar is usurping salaries payable to an Assistant Teacher in the name of Smt. Sarita Pundir or not. That had nothing to do with an appointment to be given to Smt. Sarita Pundir contrary to law in order to enable withdrawal of salary payable to an Assistant Teacher.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.