M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2003 whereby he has set aside the order dated 6.1.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Ist class, Dhanbad by reason of which all the petitioners were discharged from the offence levelled against them under Sections 406/408/420/120B of the IPC.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The informant namely, Manohar Ram the them Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order, President, B.S.S. MaHila College, Dhanbad) submitted FIR to the police of Dhanbad alleging certain financial irregularities of the college namely, Bharatiya Sewak Samaj Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Dhanbad. On receipt of complaint the Managing Committee of the college which includes Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide memo dated 26.8.1995 intimated the informant for making inquiry in respect of the said financial irregularities of the College. Pursuant to the said order of the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad, the nformant vide his memo dated 26.8.1995 deputed one Sri Maharshi Ram, Executive Magistrate, Sadar Sub -division, Dhanbad for making seizure of related accounts papers, Accordingly, all the accounts papers were seized. From the audit report of the accounts in the year 1993 -94 and 1994 -95, it transpires that it was not signed by the principal. On examination of the papers by the Executive Magistrate, it was found that some amount was misappropriated. It further transpired from the record that the police after completion of investigation submitted charge -sheet against the petitioners under Sections 406/408/420/120B of the IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken. Thereafter, discharge petition was filed by the accused persons and the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. Dhanbad by order dated 9.11.1998 rejected the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge. Petitioners then challenged the said order before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 413 of l998(R). This Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 20.10.2000, set aside the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the Magistrate and remanded back the case for passing fresh order after hearing both the parties. In compliance of the said order the Magistrate again heard both the parties on the discharge petition and passed order on 6.11.2003 allowing the petition of discharge of the accused persons from the proceeding of the case. The said order of discharge was challenged by the opposite parties before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 78/2003. The Sessions Judge after reappreciating the entire facts and the material and also evidence brought on record came to a finding that there were sufficient materials for framing charge against the accused persons and the Magistrate committed serious error in discharging them. Hence this revision application by the petitioners against the order of the Session Judge, Dhanbad.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order of the Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the revision application before the Sessions Judge was itself not entertainable in as much as the said revision application was filed by Additional Public Prosecutor and not by the State. Learned counsel drawn my attention to the copy of the revision application which has been annexed as Annexure -7 to the instant application to show that revision application was filed through the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the affidavit portion was also signed by him. Learned counsel then submitted that the Magistrate rightly discharged the petitioners from the case on the basis of finding that allegation made against the accused persons were not proved.;