1/16

27-APL-376.21-Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRI. APPLN. (APL) NO. 376 OF 2021

APPLICANT :-

Kishor S/o Babulal Shrivastav, Aged

about 63 years, Occ. Retired, R/o

Sankalp Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Akola, Tq.

and Dist. Akola.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :-

State of Maharashtra, Through Police

Station Officer, Police Station Murtizapur,

Dist – Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. A.M.Tirukh, counsel for the applicant.

Mr. A.R.Chutake, APP for the respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 15.07.2021.

O R A L J U D G M E N T

2.

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing

and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality

was proper.

3.

Heard.

KHUNTE

2/16

27-APL-376.21-Judgment

4.

Admit. The present application is heard finally with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.

By this application, the applicant i.e. accused No.2 has

challenged orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court

rejecting his prayer for being discharged in respect of Regular

Criminal Case No.222 of 2017, pending before the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur.

6.

An F.I.R. dated 09/12/2014 was registered at the behest

of the applicant as the informant against one Suresh Ghate. The

applicant as the Block Development Officer reported to the Police

that the said accused No.1 Suresh Ghate was in-charge of the

godown in which certain tin-sheets were kept, which were meant

for distribution under a scheme to the members of the weaker

section of the society. It was found that 198 such tin-sheets were

missing and on this basis aforesaid FIR stood registered against

accused No.1 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

7.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer found that the applicant himself was also responsible for

the said offence along with two other persons, who were then

KHUNTE

3/16

27-APL-376.21-Judgment

added as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. It is found in the papers placed

on record that when the charge-sheet was submitted, the

Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that the applicant

was equally responsible, because he had suppressed information

available with him with regard to involvement of accused Nos.3

and 4, employees junior to him, in the said offence and he had

deliberately caused registration of the offence only against the

accused No.1.

8.

The applicant filed an application for discharge before

the Magistrate, contending that the ingredients of the offence

punishable under sections 409 and 201 of the IPC, were not made

out. This was for the reason that in the charge-sheet/final report,

it was stated that the applicant was not only responsible for

criminal breach of trust as a public servant, but he had also

suppressed evidence showing involvement of accused Nos.3 and 4

with the intention of screening the said offenders from legal

punishment thereby inviting offence punishable under section 201

of the IPC. The Magistrate dismissed the application for discharge

filed on behalf of the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the

KHUNTE

4/16

27-APL-376.21-Judgment

applicant filed a revision application before the Sessions Court. By

the judgment and order dated 12/12/2019, the revision

application was dismissed and the findings rendered by the

Magistrate were confirmed.

9.

Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached this

Court by filing the present application. This Court issued notice

on 19/03/2021 and granted ad interim stay of the proceedings

before the Magistrate in Regular Criminal Case No.222 of 2017.

10.

Mr. Tirukh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,

submitted that the orders passed by the Magistrate and the

Sessions Court deserved to be set aside and the applicant deserved

to be discharged, in