Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 629
[Citation : 2012(1) RLW 590 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Ram Avtar Vijay & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. (Dr. Gomber, J.)
HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J.
Ram Avtar Vijay & Anr.
Versus
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 802 of 2009, decided on 07.07.2011
Vigyan Shah, for Petitioners;
Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor, for State
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482; Penal Code, Secs. 409 and 109 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Charges of abetting offence — Depot Manager, R.S.R.T.C. lodged F.I.R. alleging that a Booking clerk embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,62,799/- and petitioners being Accountant and Junior Accountant at that time neglected the performance and committed offence u/S. 409 and 109 IPC — Held — There should be intention to aid an offence or to facilitate the commission of an offence — In absence of this ingredient, no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioners u/S. 409 and 109 IPC — Nothing on record to show that they rendered any assistance to the main accused to commit the offence — In the similar F.I.R. co-accused has already been granted relief by this court — Abuse of process of law — The proceedings quashed.
Petition allowed. (Paras 13 to 15)
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 482( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 409 ,oa 109 & QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr djuk & vijk/k gsrq nq"izsfjr djus dk vkjksi & fuxe esa Mhiks izcU/kd us bl vfHkdFku ds lkFk ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djkbZ fd ,d cqfdax DydZ us 2]62]799@- #- dh jkf'k dk xcu fd;k vkSj izkFkhZx.k ds ml le; ys[kkdkj ,oa dfu"B ys[kkdkj gksus ds dkj.k mUgksaus dk;Z lEiknu esa ykijokgh dh vkSj Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 ,oa 109 ds rgr vijk/k fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fdlh vijk/k esa lgk;rk djus ;k vijk/k dkfjr djus esa lg;ksx djus dk vk'k; gksuk pkfg;s & bl ?kVd ds vHkko esa izkFkhZx.k ij Hkk-na-la dh /kkjk 409 o 109 ds rgr dksbZ vkijkf/kd nkf;Ro yknk ugha tkldrk & ;g n'kkZus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN Hkh ugha fd mUgksaus ;g vijk/k dkfjr djus gsrq eq[; vfHk;qDr dh dksbZ lgk;rk dh &,slh gh ,d ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk lg vfHk;qDr dks igys gh vuqrks"k fn;k tk pqdk gS &fof/k dh izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx gS & dk;Zokgh vfHk[kf.Mr dhA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 13 ls 15½
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition, are that the petitioners Ramavtar Vijay and Bal Mukund Shringi were posted in Kota Depot of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation as Accountant and Junior Accountant respectively during the period 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1986.
3. Satyanarain, Depot Manager of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota had filed a written report before the Police Station Nayapura, Kota on 2.5.1987 alleging that Sohan Lal, Booking Clerk at Kota Deport, had embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,62,799/- by selling tickets. It was also alleged that the petitioners being Accountant and Junior Accountant at the relevant time, neglected the performance of their duty, therefore, they also committed an offence under Section 409, 120B and 109 IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with 109 IPC.
5. After hearing the charge arguments, the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused petitioners under Section 409 and 109 IPC.
6. One of the accused namely Abdul Haq Ansari, feeling aggrieved of the order of framing charge, approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 173/94, 174/94, 176/94 and 178/94, which were allowed by this court vide order dated 24.5.1995 and the charges framed against him were quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Abdul Haq Ansari's case decided by this court squarely covers the matter before this court in issue.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the material available on record.
9. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners was that as per the report lodged by Satyanarain, Depot Manager, the embezzlement was allegedly committed by Booking Clerk Sohan Lal and so far as the petitioners are concerned, at best it could be a case where some negligence could be attributed to them while discharging their duties as Accountant and Junior Accountant in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota, but cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under Section 409 with the aid of Section 109 IPC. It was submitted that all the four revision petitions filed by Abdul Haq Ansari were allowed by this Court and the decision in Ansari's case squarely covers the matter in issue. Referring to the case Abdul Haq Ansari vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 433, it was submitted that since last 22 years the petitioners are facing agony of trial and they are now on the verge of retirement and the co-accused Abdul Haq Ansari on exactly similar charges, has been given relief by this Court by quashing the charges under Sec. 409 read with 109 IPC. The case of the petitioners requires consideration and proceedings pending against them deserve to be quashed.
10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioners' counsel and submitted that on account of negligence on the part of the petitioners, the Booking Clerk Sohan Lal could embezzle a sum of Rs. 2,62,799/-, therefore, it cannot bee said that the petitio-ners have not helped the accused Sohan Lal in aiding to commit the offence.
11. I have carefully considered the submissions and looked into the legal provisions in this regard. Since the petitioners have been charged for abetting the offence, therefore, it will be proper to deal with the relevant Section in this regard. Section 107 IPC
