I. A. Ansari, J.

1. Fairness of trial does not mean that the trial has to be fair to the accused alone. Equally important is that the trial is fair to the person aggrieved or whose near and dear ones are aggrieved. When police registers a case, the State assumes the responsibility of conducting an investigation. Having assumed the responsibility of investigating the truth or veracity of the allegations, which the police receive, the State cannot act, nor can its Investigating agency act, without a sense of impartiality. It is not merely a trial, which has to be impartial. No less important it is that the investigation, too, is impartial. Fairness of trial will carry with it the fairness of investigation and fairness of investigation will carry with it the impartiality in investigation, besides the investigation being efficient, un-biased, not aimed at helping either the prosecution or the defence. In short, an investigation must not suffer from any ulterior motive or hidden agenda to either help a person or harm a person. This is the principle, which Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 14 thereof, enshrines, when we say that our Constitution guarantees fair trial. (See Rana Sinha @ Sujit Sinha vs. State of Tripura & other reported in 2011(2) GLT 610: (2011)5 GLR 388). With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the petitioner, who is the informant of Margherita Police Station Case No. 111 of 2008 (Corresponding to GR Case No. 276 of 2008), under Sections 408/420 IPC, has sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated 16.12.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita, declining to direct further investigation into the said case, in terms of the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C., on the grounds that cognizance had already been taken, process has already been issued against the accused-opposite party No. 3 herein, namely, Sri Ashutosh Talukdar, the accused-opposite party No. 3 has already entered appearance and that Section 311 Cr. P.C. read with Section 319 Cr. P.C., give sufficient power to the Court to unearth the truth and, in the context of the facts of the present case, no order for further investigation, as has been sought for by the informant, is necessary.

2. The material facts emerging from the record and leading to the filing of the present application, under Article 482 Cr. P.C., are, in brief, set out as under:-

(i) The informant is a company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956, with its registered office at Kolkata and owns various tea gardens, in the State of Assam, including a tea garden, which is run under the name and style of Namdang Tea Estate, situated at Margherita, in the district of Tinsukia.

(ii) The accused-opposite party No. 3 herein, namely, Sri Ashutosh Talukdar, was initially appointed, on 12.11.1984, as office clerk, in Grade-in, in Namdang Tea Estate of the petitioner company and, with effect from 18.03.2000, he was posted as Head Clerk of Namdang Tea Estate. Being the Head Clerk, the opposite party No. 3, according to the petitioner, was entrusted with the duty to prepare vouchers for disbursement of payments to different persons, his additional duty being preparation and maintenance of cash books in the computer as well as in printed version. The accused, as Head Clerk, according to the petitioner, was also entrusted with the duty to not only prepare vouchers, but make payments.

(iii) Describing the manner in which the cash books, in computer as well as in printed version, are maintained and various amounts, which were disbursed to the third parties, the petitioner states that based on approximate amounts payable by the said tea estate to various persons, cash is withdrawn from the bank by the said tea estate and kept in the safe, which remains in the custody of the Manager of the said tea estate, the said safe of the petitioner's tea estate being operated jointly with two different keys at a time; while