Ashok Kumar, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] the respondent worked in the appellant-bank as cashier-cum-clerk. the enquiry was first fixed on november 15, 1994 but on that date the respondent did not appear without giving any intimation to the enquiry officer. due to his non- appearance the enquiry was adjourned to november 28, 1994. after recording his evidence, the enquiry officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges. the industrial tribunal found and held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice. it appears that from the bank this letter was not handed over to the enquiry officer. admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates. in those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the witness intended to be examined by the management in support of the charge had come in connection with that enquiry from delhi to dehradun for the third time, the enquiry officer decided to proceed with the enquiry and examine him ex parte. pw.1 happened to be the branch manager where the respondent was posted at the material time and where the misappropriation was committed by him.1. on repeated call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment.2. three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the learned magistrate in g.r. no.499 of 1999/tr. no.1031 of 2000 arising out of rahui p.s.case no.35 of 2000. by the said order, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under sections 323, 341 and 379 of the indian penal code.3. in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners, i have perused the materials available on record. it appears that the f.i.r. was lodged against four accused persons including the petitioners for offences under sections 341, 323, 307, 379 and 34 of the indian penal code. however, after investigation, police found the case true against only one accused, namely, krishna sao for offence under sections 341 and 323 of the indian penal code and the petitioners were not forwarded for trial. after filing of the charge sheet against accused krishna sao, the informant appeared through his advocate and after hearing learned counsel for the informant and perusing the f.i.r., charge sheet and case diary, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence even against three petitioners beside accused krishna sao.4. i have perused the impugned order. i do not find any defect in the impugned order particularly while considering the present petition, which has been filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure.5. accordingly, the petition stands rejected.6. in view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 13.2.2002 stands automatically vacated.7. let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.

Judgment:
1. On repeated call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment.

2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate in G.R. No.499 of 1999/Tr. No.1031 of 2000 arising out of Rahui P.S.Case No.35 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In absence of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the materials available on record. It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons including the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation, police found the case true against only one accused, namely, Krishna Sao for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were not forwarded for trial. After filing of the charge sheet against accused Krishna Sao, the informant appeared through his advocate and after hearing learned counsel for the informant and perusing the F.I.R., charge sheet and case diary, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence even against three petitioners beside accused Krishna Sao.

4. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the impugned order particularly while considering the present petition, which has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 13.2.2002 stands automatically vacated.

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.