JAI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant by means of this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has prayed this Court to quash the First information Report dated 19-4-1993 and the entire proceedings against him arising out of case crime No. 104/83 P. S. Karakat under Section 409 I.P.C. State v. Jai Prakash Singh pending in the Court of IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate or to direct the trial Court to complete the entire proceedings within a reasonable period of time. The facts of the case which gave rise to the present application were as follows.

(2.) The applicant, Jai Prakash Singh was an employee posted in the Irrigation Department, Sharad Sahayak Khand 36 Jaunpur. He was holding the post of watchman (Chaukidar). Kailash Chandra Soni who was holding the post of Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department, Sharada Sahayak Khand-36, Jaunpur had found that 47 bags of Cement worth Rs. 33,122.00 were missing from the store where the applicant was posted on duty and therefore, he lodged First Information Report dated 19-4-83 under Section 409 I.P.C. at P. S. Karakat against him. The service of the applicant also had been terminated since 31-10-1983 by the order dated 29-10-1983 without affording any opportunity to him to show cause against the termination. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, a case was registered against him as crime No. 104/8 3/07/1983, Criminal Proceedings against him even today were pending decision before IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur but no witness as yet was examined against him by the prosecution nor any other evidence had been adduced to prove his guilt as was evident from the questionnaire marked as Annexure No. 4 to the application. A notice dated 17-10-94 was issued by his Department to the applicant to deposit the amount of rupees 32, 499/- shown as various advances standing in the name of the applicant at item No. 59/59 in the month of May, 1983. He was alleged to have been involved in a theft which had occurred in the night of 13/19-4-1983 in Karakat store. The allegations in the First Information Report and the aforesaid notice dated 17-10-94 were self contradictory. According to the First Information Report, Cement bags were not found in the store when it was got opened by the applicant in the day at 2.30 p.m. on 18-4-83 while according to the notice dated 17-10-94, Cement bags were stolen in the night of 18/19-4-83. If the Cement was not found in the day on 18-4-83 at 2.30 p.m. then the theft of the same in the following night between 18/19-4-83 was not at all possible. The applicant was on duty during the day and therefore, the alleged theft which occurred in the following night was not his concerns as he was not on duty in the night. He did not possess key of the store but the Superior Officers, in order to save their skin, shifted the whole liability on his head and they had been now prolonging the proceedings inordinately in order to harass him.

(3.) His criminal trial, for the said alleged offence, was wholly false and frivolous but the authorities were not prepared to given him relief by taking him back in service and they also were not at all interested in getting the trial concluded due to which he filed this application for getting quashed the same.