Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3483 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2050 of 2021
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2020 Thana- GURUA District- Gaya
 ======================================================

Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar, Male, aged about 63 years, Son of Ram Sagar Sharma, Resident of Village- Arpa, PS- Hilsa, District- Nalanda, retired IV Grade Employee-cum-then Nazir, Block Office- Gurua, Parent Department Joint Director ( Agriculture), Magadh Division, Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Siyaram Shahi, Advocate
 For the State           :        Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on

14.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Gurua PS Case No. 151 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020, instituted

under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. As per the FIR, which has been lodged by the Block

Development Officer, Gurua, Gaya, the petitioner is said to have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2050 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

not reconciled the vouchers for Rs. 20,72,660/- at the time of

handing over of charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

was the In-charge Nazir, at the relevant time and though it is

alleged that while handing over charge, with regard to over Rs. 50

lakhs, vouchers for an amount of Rs. 20,72,660/- were not

reconciled, but the same is stale and a very belated step as the

period of allegation relates to 29.11.2010 to 16.08.2011 and the

petitioner has since superannuated on 31.12.2017. Learned

counsel submitted that when show cause was issued on the same

allegation, he had moved this Court in CWJC No. 81 of 2019, in

which a co-ordinate Bench by order dated 25.07.2019 had

quashed the same giving liberty to the respondents to take

recourse in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that

the authorities could not have instituted the present criminal

proceeding as there is bar under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension

Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') specifically

sub-Section (ii) of the Rules which does not permit departmental

as also criminal proceeding for an incident which relates to more

than four years prior to institution of such proceeding. Learned

counsel submitted that the informant has also stated in another

communication that there was some doubt with regard to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2050 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

concerned vouchers amounting to Rs. 20,72,660/-, but the

petitioner cannot be blamed for any confusion as at the relevant

time, he had handed over the entire records according to which,

there was no discrepancy. Further, learned counsel submitted that

against the petitioner a certificate case has also been instituted for

recovery of Rs. 20,72,660/-. It was submitted that prior to his

superannuation, no departmental or criminal proceeding was

pending against him. Learned counsel submitted that case under

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is also not maintainable.

7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner is not clean

for the reason that for a huge amount of Rs. 20,72,660/-, he had

not submitted the vouchers and just because till his

superannuation, it was not detected, he cannot claim immunity.

Learned counsel submitted that even the stand of the petitioner

that during his service career, no departmental or criminal case has

been filed against him is incorrect as in the present petition itself,

it has been stated that he is accused in Civil Line PS Case No. 257

of 2006 instituted under Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code

in which charges have been framed and trial is pending. Thus, it

was submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of defalcating

Government money. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner

cannot take the plea of there being a bar to institution of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2050 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Rules for the reason that the

same is only in the context of a departmental proceeding and does

not put a restriction on a criminal proceeding being instituted.

Further, learned APP submitted that the allegations made out from

the FIR have to be seen and the sections which the police indicate

shall not limit the allegation to such sections as finally it is for the

Court to take a call at the time of taking cognizance and framing

of charge and from the allegation, the charge is of a very serious

nature i.e., non-reconciliation of vouchers relating to public

money to the tune of Rs. 20,72,660/-, especially in light of a

previous allegation against him of the year 2006.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T