- (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C . has been filed against the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by District and Session Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2014 as well as order dated 07.11.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Jaunpur whereby the applicant was not discharged under Sections 409 , 420 IPC and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1074 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. c-28/2003, U/s 408, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC , Police Station-Sikrara, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-V, Jaunpur.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the incident dated 02.09.2003, the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.09.2003 by the opposite party no.2 through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the applicant, who was the Manager of Sumitra Maha Vidhyalaya Sherwan, with the intention to misappropriate the fund, opened an account in his name bearing account no. 8636 in the Punjab National Bank and he never produced the audited accounts before the Committee of Management of the college. He deposited only Rs. 14 lacs in place of 25 lacs and misappropriated rest of the amount. Subsequently, after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 04.02.2002 against the applicant. Aggrieved by the charge sheet, the applicant has approached before this Court by Cri. Misc. Application No. 7089 of 2004 for quashing the charge sheet and this Court vide order dated 05.08.2004 disposed off the said application with the direction to raise the plea of lack of evidence at the stage of framing of charges and also interim protection has been granted to the applicant. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the applicant had filed an application under Section 240 Cr.P.C. to discharge the applicant from the offences for lack of evidence and vide order dated 07.11.2014, the concerned court below has partly allowed the application, discharging the applicant from the offences under Section 408 , 419 , 467 , 468 I.P.C. while maintaining the charges under Sections 409 , 420 IPC. It has further been contended that against the order dated 07.11.2014, the applicant had filed revision before the court below, which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 04.10.2019 by cursory and non speaking order and the same order is bereft of any application of mind. It has further been contended that the concerned court below has rightly discharged the applicant from the offences under Sections 408 , 409 , 419 , 467 , 468 IPC for lack of evidence in the materials collected by the prosecution against the applicant but the court below committed grave illegality in holding the offences under Sections 409 , 420 IPC. It has further been contended that no embezzlement of funds has been done as due amount has also paid by the applicant as alleged in the F.I.R. The facts and grounds taken by the applicant have not been taken into consideration by both the court below while passing the impugned orders. Therefore, both orders are perverse and liable to be set aside.;