IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.325 of 2017

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2011 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan

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

Shiv Shankar Prasad, Son of Harihar Prasad, Resident of Village- Ukhai

(East), Police Station- Sarai (O.P.) District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Arun Kumar Paswan, S/o Gambhir Paswan, the Block Development

Officer, Block and Police Station- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Indra Kumar Singh, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

ORAL ORDER

2

10-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned APP.

On the basis of a letter issued by BDO, Panchrukhi,

communicated vide letter no. 1412 dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-

2), the petitioner has challenged the order of the cognizance

dated 25.05.2015 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been

summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section

420, 409 IPC.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that after

going through the aforesaid letter, it is evident that there were

two dealers having named as Shiv Shankar Prasad. Whatever

allegation happens to be is with regard to other Shiv Shankar

Prasad and not against the petitioner. The same would not be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.325 of 2017(2) dt.10-01-2019

2/2

accepted, more particularly, in the background of the fact that

the same CO had instituted the case whereunder name of

petitioner has properly been identified as Shiv Shankar Prasad

son of Harihar Prasad. Furthermore, whatever been incorporated

in the aforesaid letter “ Sri Shiv Shankar Prasad dwara diye

gaye kagzaat evam apke ke karyalaya se prapt khadhyanna

uthao ki suchi ko dekhne se pratit hota hai ki Sri Prasad dwara

matra 161.00 Quintal hi chawal uthaya gaya hai” while

Annexure of the FIR suggests of lifting of 319.31 Quintal rice in

between 2001-2006 which is not at all found properly explained

in the aforesaid letter.

Accordingly, the order impugned does not attract

interference. Consequent thereupon, instant petition lacks merit

and is accordingly, rejected.

perwez

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

U

T