Supreme Court of India
BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION versus NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- 28 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 745 · 1995 INSC 800
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 745, margin H
It is stated that the first respondent was posted as an Assistant Godown Manager in the Stores. Within a period of three months, he committed defalcation of mis-appropriation of Rs. 2,61,859 .30. The mis-appropriation of the said amount took place during the period of 1976 and earlier. A departmental enquiry commenced on December 12, 1979 and initially the prosecution was laid in 1985 without obtaining the sanction. The learned Magistrate discharged the respondent on the ground that the sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not obtained. In 1991, the sanction was obtained and thereafter the prosecution was laid. The High Court unfortunately has interfered with the matter exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that there was a delay of 15 years in laying the prosecution. This was most unfortunate that the High Court would have interfered but having regard to the distance of time at this stage, it is not appropriate to interfere with the matter which is at a stage of even starting of the trial.
p. 746, margin A
Having considered the totality of the fact of abnormal delay, it is not a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal on this ground. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 746, margin C