JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Yesterday, though nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned for today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has no instructions and took leave of the Court to attend to her other matters.

3. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for the following relief:

“That this is an application on behalf of the Petitioner for quashing part of order dated 9.5.2013 passed in Cr.Rev. No.42/2013 {heard along with Cr. Rev. No.32/2013 (Girish Shankar v. The State of Bihar)} by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran Bettiah whereby and whereunder although the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the issuance of non bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner issued by order dated 25.1.2013 passed by Mr. Pranav Shankar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah passed in Official Complaint Case No.22(O.C.)/1993; but the learned Sessions Judge in para-19 of the impugned order directed “That this is an application on behalf of the Petitioner for quashing part of order dated 9.5.2013 passed in Cr.Rev. No.42/2013 {heard along with Cr. Rev. No.32/2013 (Girish Shankar v. The State of Bihar)} by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran Bettiah whereby and whereunder although the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the issuance of non bailable warrant of arrest he petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate without any further delay ignoring the plea of the petitioner made with respect of non compliance of Sections 63 & 305 Cr.P.C.”

4. As per Official Complaint Case No. 22 of 1993 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran on 19.04.1993, by the Excise Superintendent, Bettiah, West Champaran against (1) The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited through Managing Director; (2) The General Manager, The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Lauria, West Champaran; (3) The Assistant General Manager, The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Lauria, West Champaran and (4) The Cane Manager, The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Lauria, West Champaran alleging that as per the audit report submitted by the Accountant General for the year 1991-92, due to wastage of molasses by the Unit, there was loss of Government revenue to the tune of Rs. 1,91,13,975/-for which the accused were held liable.

5. From the pleadings, especially the complaint, it is an admitted fact that the audit with regard to loss of molasses related to the year 1991-92 i.e., from 1st April, 1991 to till 31st March 1992. The accused also were made party by designation. However, the Court took cognizance by order dated 24.04.1993 when the petitioner was holding the post of General Manager of the Unit (accused no. 2), having joined such post on 02.11.1992 and Mr. Girish Shankar, the Managing Director of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited (accused no. 1) who had also joined the post on 03.11.1992. As the Court had taken cognizance against the accused nos. 1 and 2 only, i.e., the Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited and the General Manager of its Lauria Unit, the persons who were holding such post on 24.04.1993, i.e., the date of taking of cognizance, Mr. Girish Shankar, the Managing Director and the petitioner being the General Manager, they filed an application before the Court concerned under Section 205 of the Code seeking exemption from appearance. The same was rejected by order dated 13.04.1994. Being aggrieved, they moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7581 of 1994 which was allowed by a coordinate Bench on 15.09.1999 and the personal appearance of the officers, including the Managing Director and the petitioner, was dispensed with and they were allowed to be represented through their counsel until further order of the trial Court. Later, the Judicial Magistrate,