HARI KISHORE SINGH Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-6-88
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on June 21,2013

Hari Kishore Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Allahabad Bank, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Special Case No. 24/1997, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15/1997, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 477A, 420, 409, 120 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1947.
(2.) It is the case of the Vigilance, with respect of this petitioner, that one S. S. Ali, the then Junior Engineer, Road Sub Division, Purnea1, sent a hand written requisition through one of the staffs of the Division to Road Construction Division, Sahebganj, for providing 500 MT Bitumen. That requisition also contained the signature of this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Division, Purnea1. This requisition, as per the case, had been sent in the year 1983, but in the year 1997, the case was lodged that in spite of receiving 500 MT of Bitumen, it has not been accounted for in the office of Road Division, Purnea and, thereby, it has been alleged that this petitioner and other accused persons misappropriated it. But, the fact is that a requisition had been sent for making available only 200 MT of Bitumen, but that was never provided with, but the Vigilance has come with a wrong case that the requisition had been sent for making available 500 MT of Bitumen. As a matter of fact, this petitioner had never made any requisition or had put his signature over the requisition with respect to 300 MT of Bitumen and all these facts have come during departmental proceeding initiated against this petitioner, wherein it has been found that the requisition sent for making available 200 MT of Bitumen was not complied with and, thereby, 200 MT of Bitumen had never been sent to the office of Road Division, Purnea as the same had been cancelled.
(3.) The fact, which has been brought in this case towards defence, cannot be looked into at this stage and, therefore, those facts cannot be a subject matter for quashing of the first information report.;


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