- (1.) This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 24.8.2009 by hich the Complaint Case No. 614 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 355 of 2009 filed on behalf of the complainant-petitioner was dismissed by Shri K.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih for the alleged offence under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The complainant's case in short was that the complainant happened to be the Vice-President of the union of Home Guards in the State of Jharkhand and he had protested the accused on the issue that one Home Guard Srikant Singh Yadav though was discharged from his service in the year 2004 but he was allowed to work in the office and to grab the public money fraudulently by manipulation and playing fraud. In this regard the complainant-petitioner had made a complaint to the responsible officer but of no avail. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, who set up an enquiry presided over by Shri Anil Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Giridih and after enquiry he submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. It was further stated in the Complaint Petition that he ultimately filed a petition exercising his right under the Right to Information Act and from the answer to the questionnaire put by him, it was to his utter surprise that the said Srikant Singh Yadav was indulged in committing serious forgery and mischief with the aid of the other accused persons. He then met the Senior Officers of the Home Guard but he could gather that the other accused persons had been protecting the principal accused against all his criminal acts of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of public fund.
(3.) Learned Counsel pointed out that after the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, an enquiry was held under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses were examined, who supported the case of the complainant but one Shri Anil Kumar, Executive Magistrate could not be examined in spite of the request made by the complainant though his report was called for and was brought on the record.;