Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash/stay the entire proceedings of order dated 27.03.2010 in Criminal Case No. 33/2008 under Section 409/204 I.P.C., P.S. Saini, District- Kaushambi pending in the Court of A.C.J.M-II, Kausambi.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was appointed as Assistant operator cum Chowkidar in the Kishan Sahkari Cold Storage, Sirathu, Kausambi. Since 1992, there was no payment in respect of the salary to him. Hence, the petition was filed before Labour Court in the year, 1997 which is still pending. Thereafter, a report was lodged regarding embezzlement of amount of Cold Storage of the Secretary. Further allegation was also made against applicant is that there was charge of certain machineries of the storage with the applicant for which applicant and the then Assistant Secretary, Harnam Singh were responsible. Since the applicant filed petition for payment before the Labour Court. Hence, on the basis of false and concocted story, applicant has also been implicated in the present case. The applicant was only Chowkidar. It appears that the parts of the machinery were removed by some other person who was also incharge of the same, Harnam Singh, the then Assistant Development Officer/Assistant Secretary. Even from perusal of the record as well as F.I.R., it appears that the charge was with the then Assistant Secretary/Assistant Development Officer. However, applicant has also been implicated in the present case. Hence, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer on the ground that admittedly, the applicant was Chowkidar and as per first information report and the case of the prosecution, at the time of inspection,certain parts of the machinery were found missing. Whether there is any misappropriation by the applicant or not it is to decided on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. Hence, the present application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances, whether defence of the applicant is correct or prosecution version is correct is required to be considered on the basis of evidence. Hence, no interference is required at this stage. Whether offence is made out against applicant or only against Harnam Singh or against both or any other person, it has to be decided on the basis of evidence.
However, if the applicant appears and moves bail application before the court concerned within a period of 30 days from today, it is expected that the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in view of the guidelines of Full Bench decision of High Court case of Amarawati and another V. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390, by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437.
If due to any reason the application could not be disposed of on the same day then the applicant may be released on interim bail, in view of the above judgments.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Sunil Kr Tiwari