HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has arisen out of the impugned order dated 28.11.2001 passed in Trial No. 235 of 2001 whereby a prayer has been made to pass appropriate order/direction for quashing impugned order.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the revision application are that Shri Manendra Kumar, Assistant Commissioner. Excise, Sadar, Country Spirit Warehouse, Hazaribagh on suspicion of irregularities in the sachets manufacturing 'swell as warehouse along with Excise Inspector, Koderma made a surprise inspection on 21.2.1995 and in course of inspection, the petitioner, who is sub - inspector, excise, was in -charge of the godown and Jagdish Jaiswal, duly authorized representative of the contractor who used to supervise the filling of sachets retailed sale manufacturing, etc., was present at the time of inspection. During the course of inspection, various documents concerning warehouse were examined and in the Register -84 and 88, which related to the accounts was found maintained upto 18.2.1995 and it is alleged that this was done with ulterior motive. Liquor available in the warehouse and the sachets filled earlier were found of less strength than that specified as it was found to be 60.6 U.P. instead of 60.0 U.P. and was weak, 1780 L.P. liters on verification was found to be less and that Shri Manendra Kumar during the course of inspection has circled the Register with his pen on 21.2.1995 and signed thereon which was also signed by authorized representative of the contractor as also the present officials which contained details with regard to the preparation of quantity of liquor and its strength. After finding of these discrepancies, the petitioner was put under suspension and after five days, his suspension order was revoked and he was re -instated on the same position. After resuming duties, he tried to make Interpolation in the various entries made on 21.2.1995 by trying to erase overwriting particularly, interpolation were made in Register No. 68. This act on the part of the petitioner led to the loss of revenue to the Government as also public got weak spirit and the petitioner had tried to destroy the evidence. The FIR was lodged after great deal of delay and cause of delay, which was shown in the FIR is that departmental inquiry, its report as also obtaining the Government 'sorder and election etc. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under various sections of IPC. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that occurrence is of 21.2.1995 whereas FIR has been lodged on 7.4.2000 after about five years and there is no justification for delay in lodging of FIR. Learned counsel further pointed out that just after inspection on 21.2.1995 this petitioner was placed under suspension and soon thereafter this suspension order was revoked because he was not found guilty and thorough inquiry was made by District Magistrate who is also the licensing authority under the Act and a committee of two officials was continued to inquire into the matter and after inquiry it was found that this petitioner is not at fault, but Assistant Commissioner, Excise Shri Manendra Kumar is responsible as he has done all works against the established rules for reasons best known to him. The learned counsel referred to several paragraphs of Annexure -4 and tried to convince that the petitioner is not at fault and it is Manendra Kumar who is responsible for all lapses as from 22.2.1995 to 26.2.1995 during the period this petitioner was under suspension, all such manipulations were made to implicate this petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner is at fault because even D.S.P. and S.P. who supervised the case have come to a finding that this petitioner made interpolation in the Register after suspension order against him was revoked and after he took over charge of the same establishment, he made interpolation in the Register and other things concerned. The learned State counsel further pointed out that on 21.2.1995 it was found that accounts have been maintained upto 18.2.1995, this is a gross irregularity on the part of the petitioner as to why he did not maintain the accounts even upto 21.2.1995 and this was so because he used to commit bungling and, therefore, in course of inspection shortage and other materials raised in the FIR were detected. It is also not clear as to who left out entries from 18.2.1995 to 21.2.1995, but made entry in the Register. The learned counsel further pointed out that obviously these entries were made by the petitioner and all those bunglings were found to have been committed by this petitioner.;