Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9752 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brij Mohan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.8.2019 passed by Session Judge, Kaushambi, District Kaushambi in Crl. Revision No. 24 of 2019 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 19.1.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, District Kaushambi in Case No. 113 of 2019, arising out of case crime no. 93 of 2018, under Section 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Saini, Distrit Kaushambi as well as charge sheet dated 21.12.2018.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Principal of the Rajkiya Audyogik Prashikshan Sansthan, Sirathu has addressed a letter to Joint Director (Prashikshan/Shikshu) Allahabad, Mandal, Allahabad in which it was mentioned that one employee engaged on contract basis namely Vipin Bihari was involved in changing the answer books of private I.T.I. exam and 63 copies were recovered from his custody and that he was immediately placed under suspension and was thrown out of service. Subsequently the Principal of the said Institution had given an application to the S.H.O. Kaushambi dated 19.2.2018 stating therein that 63 copies were recovered by S.D.M. himself from employee Vipin Bihari, who was engaged on contract basis on 18.2.2018 at 10:20 am. Thereafter attention was drawn to a letter addressed by S.D.M. Kaushambi to D.M. Kaushambi, which is annexed at page 42 and 43 of the paper book in which it has been mentioned that on the Examination Centre, examination of back paper of the I.T.I. was conducted on 15.2.2018 and drawing sheets of 52 examinee were recovered which was taken into possession and in two room the paper relating to the examination were found scattered and there the said employee Vipin Bihari was present. He had admitted that he had seized all the almirahs and that whatever instructions are given by the Principal, were being complied by him and if he did not comply, he was threatened to be thrown out of service. Citing these pieces of evidence, he has pointed out that in fact the said employee Vipin Bihari along with Principal were involved in this occurrence and not the petitioner. He had nothing to do with the present offence and has been falsely implicated at a later stage when F.I.R. has been lodged, therefore, there is no evidence on record and charge sheet needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer of quashing.
I have gone through the F.I.R. It is recorded in it that on 18.2.2018 at about 10:20 am, it was informed by S.D.M. concerned to the informant (Sujeet Kumar, Principal of the Institution), that in his institution, when he reached there the employee engaged on contract basis i.e. Vipin Bihari was present and 63 copies were recovered from him which were sealed and it was also apprised that copies were being replaced by Ajay Singh Patel, (concerned clerk) and Sri Brij Mohan, (In- charge of the Security) and in collusion with some other persons. No order was given by the informant to open the said Institution and yet without any such permission, the same was opened and these illegal activities were being performed there, hence on the basis of this F.I.R. investigation was conducted in this case and charge sheet has been submitted after having recorded statements of as many as eight witnesses, statements of whom cannot be disbelieved at this stage as the same would require trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that false allegations have been made against the petitioner as he was a tractor mechanic and not a security guard. It is matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner was security guard or not because if he was posted there as a security guard and under his nose these illegal activities were going on, certainly it cannot be ruled out that he would have been involved in the occurrence. All these things are subject matter which cannot be looked into. In view of above, this court does not find any justification to quash the impugned orders.
Accordingly, prayer for quashing is refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 A.P. Pandey