Bala Prasad Sharma vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) has been preferred for quashing the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 272/2011 wherein charges were framed u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC''), against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly petitioner had been posted as Head Constable at Police Station Padav during the relevant period i.e. 27.06.1994 to 18.07.2008 and being a Public Servant he was entrusted some important documents which were material evidence to prove offence under Sections 420 & 380 of IPC, in Crime No. 92/1994. It is further submitted that in those documents one cheque was also included unfortunately entrusted documents could not be produced by the petitioner for some enquiry. It is also submitted that because documents were neither dishonestly misappropriated neither they were converted to used by the petitioner himself. Therefore, prima facie there is no evidence to frame charge u/s 409 of IPC. Reliance has been placed on Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, and Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, .

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, record has been perused.

It is an admitted fact that during the relevant period petitioner was public servant as Head Constable and he was entrusted some documents including cheque, which were material evidence in regard to the Crime No. 92/1994, registered at Police Station, Padav, Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 380 of IPC. It is also an admitted fact that the above mentioned articles of evidence had not been produced by the petitioner for enquiry as he was directed by the authorities.

In view of the illustration given u/s 405(e) of IPC, which is as followed.

405 (e) A, a revenue Officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law or bound by a contract, express or implied with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust. It is clear that when public servant to whom property is entrusted and is directed by law are bound by a contract entrusted or implied with the government does not produced property amounts to dishonestly appropriate the property and public servant is committed criminal breach of trust and so also it is clear from the judgment of Kailash (supra) in para-8 of the judgment. In the aforesaid discussion in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 and also in framing the charge u/s 409 IPC against the petitioner, therefore, petition is devoid of merits, it is hereby dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits.