D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD both the sides.
(2.) THESE present petitions have been preferred by the petitioner Tirthraj Himmatsinghka @ Tirth Raj Himmat Singh, the Director - cum Financer Ideal Credit Private Ltd. against the order of C.J.M., Deoghar dated 14.2.2007 passed in T.R. No. 22 of 2007 arising out of G.R. Case No. 908 or 1996 by which the prayer for discharge dated 11.8.2005 has been refused. Similarly situated co accused Sunil Kumar Kotriwal @ Sunil Kotriwal has preferred a separate revision petition being Cr. Revision No. 240 of 2007. Since both the matters arise out of same order, they being disposed of by this common order. One Sunil Kumar has lodged an FIR before the Deoghar Police on the basis of which Deoghar (T) P.S. Case No 384 of 1996 was instituted against these petitioners and others under sections 406, 421), 465, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against these petitioners and others. The learned CJM, took cognizance in this case vide order dated 21.3 1998 against which the petitioner preferred Cr. Misce Petition No. 16425/1998. Others also preferred Cr. Misc Petition Nos. 26259/93, 26534/93 which was finally disposed of by order dated 7.12.1999 as it involved complicated questions of facts and considerations of documents as defence only at the stage of trial so that the claim over the truck may be decided correctly. When the matter was fixed for framing of charge, discharge petitions were filed separately by these two petitioners on 11.8.2005 and 6.1.1999 and others on different dares. The learned CJM, Deoghar considered all those petitions simultaneously and passed the impugned order wherein it held that there were materials on record sufficient for framing of charge for the offences under Sec. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471/: Sec. 4 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri K.P. Deo appearing for he Sunil Kumar Kotriwal suggested that there is no materials on record to involve the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that he is one of the employees of the other petitioner Sri Tirthraj Himmatsinghka and even in the fard beyan no allegation of overt act was made out against him. According to him the prosecution is bound to fail in absence of any positive evidence. As such the impugned order may be set aside and petitioner be discharged from the liabilities of facing trial.;