PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 26.2.2002, by which order Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi rejected the petition of the petitioner filed for his discharge in Cr. Case No. 2914 of 1991 giving a finding that from the evidences available on record, it is evidently clear that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Sections, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner came before this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5153 of 1993(R) alongwith C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991(R) for quashing the F.I.R. and investigation of Kanke P.S. Case No. 97 of 1991 started against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the application was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner can once again agitate the matter at the time of framing of the charge by the trial court, hence he had filed the aforesaid application and the learned trial court when considering the points raised before him rejected the same, hence this revision application.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it will appear from Annexure -6 at page 42 of the plea that on the same allegation under resolution of the Vice -Chancellor, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi an enquiry was started against the petitioner and it will also appear that while Annexure -8, the enquiry report submitted by Shri R. Kerketta, E.O., Director, Extension Education, B.A.U., Ranchi. The petitioner was exonerated from the charges and hence the petitioner cannot be tried for the said offence again in this criminal proceeding and hence the learned trial court ought to have discharged the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that the basis on which the F.I.R. was lodged was found not true during enquiry and as such there is no case against the petitioner and the continuance of the proceeding is illegal and the trial court without considering the fact rejected the application only giving a finding of prima facie case against him on the basis of evidence available on case diary and is bad in law and fit to be set aside.;