The rejection of a discharge application is valid when a prima facie case exists based on the police report, regardless of subsequent exoneration in departmental inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Veerendra Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist, in Case No. 286 of 2007, State v. Avanish Chandra Srivastava and others, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 111, 120B I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2004, registered at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by Mr. V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate that on 29.03.2004, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R., which was registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2004, under Section 409 I.P.C, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi with the allegation that the revisionist has not handed over the charges and also has not submitted relevant papers of rural development to the concerned Officer, after being relieved. It was further alleged that he prepared some receipt/bill voucher after making forged signature.

4. On 31.12.1981, the revisionist was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur. In the month of April, 1982, he was transferred from District Mirzapur and he joined the same post in Block Manjhanpur (then District Allahabad). He was promoted to the post of Accountant in the year 1996 and in the year 1997 he was transferred to District Kaushambi and attached in the office of the District Development Officer, Kaushambi. Ultimately, in the year 2000, he was attached with the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kaushambi till 17.12.2003. Thereafter, he was relieved from that office and was transferred to the office of Block Development Officer Sarsawa, District Kaushambi and then on 31.12.2022, he retired after attaining the age of superannuation.

5. After registration of F.I.R., the investigation was proceeded and the Investigating Officer interrogated the first informant Mohan Singh Dohare, Kamal Narayan Singh and Chandrama Prasad Pandey. During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the applications send by one Indra Pal Sonkar mentioning in it that two files were not handed over to him. The Investigating Officer recorded supplementary statement of one Chandrama Prasad Pandey and the first informant. Thereafter, he collected affidavit of Dr. Vinay Kumar Upadhyay and recorded his statement. He also recorded the statements of co-accused Indra Pal Sonkar. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer was changed and new Investigating Officer started investigating the matter on 28.05.2006.

6. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the revisionist are totally incorrect and baseless. In the investigation, nothing was found against the revisionist but co-accused Indra Pal Sonkar was found to be guilty. The revisionist in his statement has clearly stated that he was transferred from his post and he handed over the charges to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kaushambi on 17.12.2003, including files in question. He also handed over Rs. 11,392/- and Rs. 40,000/- in cash to him. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet on 24.12.2006 against the revisionist and co-accused Indra Pal Sonkar under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 111, 120B I.P.C and the learned Magistrate, took cognizance on 21.02.2007. During investigation, it became quite clear that the said two files, which were stated to have been missing, was receive