The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of violation of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act did not warrant discharge from the case due to the primary accusation of misappropriation of public money.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The sole Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated, 9th March, 1999 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in G.R.No. 4076 of 1984, Tr. No. 49 of 1988 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 1108 of 1984 whereby the Petitioners petition for discharge was rejected.

2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of written application submitted by one Jamuna Singh, the District Agriculture Officer, Patna to the Officer-ln-charge of Pataliputra Police Station, a first information report vide Kotwali (S.K. Puri) P.S. Case No. 1108 of 1984 was registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against four Accused persons. It was disclosed by the Informant that on the order of Agriculture Production Commissioner, Joint Director of Plant Protection, Bihar, Patna, Shri C.S. Rai, the Informant did physical verification of Insecticides of Plant Protection Centre, Mainpura. During physical verification, besides the Informant Shri C.S. Rai, D.P. Choudhary, Assistant Director, Plant Protection, Patna, Shri Ram Charitra Prasad, Assistant Director, Agriculture, Planning, Patna Division, Patna and Shri Sakaldeo Thakur, Junior Plant Protection Officer, Patna were afso present. The verification report was sent to the Government on 28th July, 1984. It was further alleged that during physical verification of the stock, value of pesticides were found short for an amount of Rs. 11,39,435.86. The said amount was embezzled by the then Plant Protection Officer, Mainpura, namely, Muneshwar Prasad. It was further disclosed that Accused- Muneshwar Prasad had also sold pesticides during the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 on 50 per cent subsidy to the tune of Rs. 18,84,173.47. This amount had been defalcated by him. This was sold because Mainpura Centre had got no sanction to sell insecticides on 50 per cent subsidy or on special discount. The list of pesticides sold on 50 per cent subsidy or on special discount without permission was enclosure-2 to the first information report. The allegation was that Accused-Muneshwar Prasad sold the pesticides on full payment and falsely showed to be sold on 50 per cent subsidy and on special discount and he grabbed the whole money. It was further disclosed that Accused Muneshwar Prasad, had also received pesticides of Rs. 3,90,364.67 during 1983-84 and sold the same while he was posted at Mokamah Tal Plant Protection Centre. Out. of this amount he deposited only Rs. 14,480.00 to the BiSCOMAUN Depot, Mokamah. The rest of the money Rs. 3,75,904.67 was alleged to have been grabbed by Accused Muneshwar Prasad. It was said that he had been helped by Depot Manager in supply of pesticides without the order of the competent Authority. The FIR also disclosed that the cash book was found written till 25th March, 1984 but the total of the same had not been mentioned. A sum of Rs. 5,36,997.29 had been shown as balance in entries of 22nd March, 1984 only a sum of Rs. 2,01,000 had been deposited with BiSCOMAUN Depot, Maharajganj on 23.3.84. It was alleged that Accused Muneshwar Prasad had grabbed Rs. 3,35,397.29. As per first information report Accused Muneshwar Prasad, on the basis of Letter No. 2493 dated, 28th February, 1984 issued to Depot Manager, Maharajganj and Danapur by Special Officer, Ajay Pratap Singh, sold damaged and sub standard Dithane M-45 on 25 per cent subsidy to farmers but sale of damaged Dithane M-45 was contrary to the Insecticides Act. The BISCOMAUN did not inform the licencing Authority and Joint Director, Plant Protection and hence violating the provisions of the Act, farmers were supplied with sub standards medicine. It was further alleged that records of Accused Muneshwar Prasad had not been seized. It was afso apparent from Letter No. 869 dated, 1st August, 1984 issued from the office of Direct