IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.1 of 2002

*****

Against the judgment/order of acquittal dated 12.10.2001 passed in G.R.no.

582/96/TR no.431/2001 by Sri Ramdeo Singh, Sub-divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Lakhisarai

===========================================================

The State of Bihar

.... .... Appellant

Versus

Shri Nand Kishore Prasad

.... .... Respondent

===========================================================

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ranbir Singh, Amicus Curiae

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 09-10-2012

Prosecution case initiated on written application of Sudhir Prasad Singh

P.W.4, in brief, is that in total Rs. 14,58,100/- was allocated for three schemes

namely Mahesh Leta Madhyam Sinchai Yojna, Jharkhand Madhayam Sinchai

Yojna and Damorpur Madhayam Sinchai Yojna and advance of Rs. 8,05,000/-

was handed over to accused respondent to complete the work. Of all the three

schemes work was done but not for the total advance money rather for lesser

value of Rs. 2,74,292/-. Further deduction towards royalty and sales tax Rs.

6,723/- also remained with accused respondent. He was executive agent of the

work. It is said that he was requested either to complete the work or to return the

advance amount but did not comply, an enquiry was conducted and after

completion of the same finding the allegation true an F.I.R. is lodged.

2. The trial commenced and ended in acquittal of respondent which is

challenged submitting the same not valid and legal.

3. In all six witnesses are examined in the case. They are P.W.1 Anil

Kumar Singh a clerk, P.W.2 Yatindra Kumar Singh correspondent clerk, P.W.3

Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.1 of 2002 dt.09-10-2012

2

Bimleshchandra Srivastava, P.W.4 Sudhir Prasad Singh informant of the case,

P.W. 5 Harihar Prasad Singh, Chief Engineer at the relevant time Junior Engineer

and P.W.6 Pradip Kumar Verma, I.O.of the Case.

4. Scheme was there to be completed. Advance was there for

completion of all the schemes is not disputed. Allegation is that lesser work was

done than the advance money.

5. All the prosecution witnesses except P.W.6 are there to state that

money was advanced and lesser work was done as alleged in the F.I.R. but

evidence is lacking on the point that how much work was done if was lesser even

I.O. has not measured the work done by accused respondent like other

prosecution witnesses.

6. It is made clear that none of the witnesses states as what work

was done if was lesser, no measurement is there. Other aspect of the case has been

well discussed by the trial court in its judgment/order. So, I find no mistake

committed in the said judgment/order. The Govt. appeal is accordingly,

dismissed.

A.I./N.A.F.R.

(Mandhata Singh, J)