Patna High Court

Anjani Kumar MishraversusThe North Bihar Power Distribution Company, Patna and Anr.

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The criminal proceedings against Anjani Kumar Mishra were quashed as there was insufficient evidence and he had been exonerated on the merits in the departmental proceeding.

Summary

Anjani Kumar Mishra, a cashier in the Bihar Electricity Department, was charged under several IPC sections for alleged embezzlement of about Rs 31.39 lakh by a franchisee, Surya Narayan Sah. The prosecution alleged Mishra failed to verify bank statements during his brief posting at Birpur Sub‑Division. Mishra contended he was not in post when the fraud occurred, had no role in verification, and was exonerated in departmental proceedings, with the defrauded amount recovered from the franchisee. The High Court examined the standard of proof required in criminal cases versus departmental adjudication, relying on Supreme Court precedents. Finding no material evidence linking Mishra to the fraud and noting his exoneration on the merits in the departmental inquiry, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings. The application for quashing was allowed and the case disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal prosecution under IPC sections can continue when the accused has been exonerated in departmental proceedings on the merits.
Whether the standard of proof in criminal cases precludes conviction in the absence of evidence beyond reasonable doubt despite findings in an adjudicatory proceeding.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

criminal prosecution
departmental proceedings
standard of proof
embezzlement
Indian Penal Code
quash order
public sector electricity
exoneration

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52827 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2011 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Anjani Kumar Mishra Son of Late Madhav Mishra, residence of Village P.S.-
Balua Bazar, Dist- Supaul

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The North Bihar Power Distribution Company, Patna
2. Prasant kumar, S/O Sri Birendra Pd Gupta, Vill P.O. P.S.- Natwar, Dist-
Rohtas.
3. The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra
For the Power Holding : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Shashwat Srivastava,
For the State : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha APP
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

4 13-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the North Bihar Power Distribution

Company and the learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the

order dated 20.02.2014 passed by S.D.J.M. Birpur in G.R. No.

380/2011 (arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 91/2011) by

which cognizance was taken U/s 420, 406,

409,467,468,471,120(B) I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the instructions of

Assistant Electrical Engineer, Birpur and Electrical Executive

Engineer, Supaul, an inquiry committee was constituted whose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
2/15

chairman was Sub Inspector Prashant Kumar and members were

Raj Kumar Yadav, Accounts Assistant, Birpur, Kedar Nath Jha,

Bill Clerk, Birpur and Awadhesh Sharma, Correspondence

Clerk, Birpur. Under the chairmanship of the members and the

Chairman, the cash book, bank computer summary and bank

voucher of Raghopur were compared in which during the

investigation by Shri Surya Narayan Sah, s/o Shri Bhola Sah,

village Jahlipatti, PO Devipur, Police Station Radhopur, District

Supaul, franchisee Simrahi Feeder whose agreement number is

01/10-11 dated 10.09.10, alloy number 1074 dated 01.09.10, it

was found that the revenue amount of approximately Rs.

31,39,341.93 collected from the electricity consumers from the

month of February 2011 to 10/ August 2011 was not deposited

in the account of Bihar State Electricity Board. Government

revenue has been embezzled by Surya Narayan Sah. Upon

questioning the branch manager of Simrahi State Bank, the

Inquiry Committee found that the bank voucher deposited by

Surya Narayan Sah did not belong to this bank branch and the

seal and signature on the bank voucher were incorrect.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence,

merely on the suspicion, he has been made accused during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
3/15

course of investigation by alleging that the petitioner was posted

as Cashier at Birpur Sub Division. The petitioner is working as

Assistant Accountant of the Electricity Department and was

posted in the Electricity Supply Division, Farbisganj, he was

transferred by order dt. 17.02.2011 from Farbisganj to Supaul

Division. In pursuance of the order dated 17.02.2011, the

petitioner submitted his joining at the Supaul Division, where he

was posted in the Electricity Sub Division, Birpur, as per the

order dated 08.03.2011, and the petitioner joined on 09.03.2011.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that the

franchise was granted to Surya Narayan Sah of Simrahi feeder

based on an agreement for a duration of 12 months, from

10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011. At the time of this agreement, the

petitioner was not posted within the Sub Division of Birpur, but

was posted elsewhere from March 2011 to June 2011, while the

franchise agreement spanned from 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the petitioner was

posted at the Birpur Sub Division on 08.03.2011, where he

served for approximately 3 months as an Account Assistant till

June 2011. Thereafter, under the signature of the Joint Secretary,

Bihar State Electricity Department, a transfer order was issued
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
4/15

to the petitioner via memo no. 1580 dated 04.07.2011,

transferring him to Rosera, within the district of Samastipur. The

petitioner was relieved by the Assistant Electric Engineer,

Birpur, to join at Rosera on 11.07.2011, and he submitted his

joining there.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that immediately after the issuance of the transfer

order on 04.07.2011, the petitioner filed an application before

the Assistant Electricity Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division,

Birpur, requesting the entry of the scroll roll, cash book, and

bank account, as per the directions. He explained that he could

not complete the work due to his transfer and requested that the

bank statement be taken for verification. He further submits that

a special audit was conducted by the Electricity Department to

investigate the defalcation committed by Surya Narayan Sah,

the franchisee of Simrahi feeder, during the period from October

2010 to August 2011. The audit revealed that Surya Narayan

Sah had defalcated Rs. 29,34,847/- while depositing a security

amount of Rs. 11,65,710/-, leaving a recoverable amount of Rs.

2,59,052/- from Surya Narayan Sah. It is further submitted that

during the course of the investigation, it was alleged that Surya

Narayan Sah had defalcated a total of Rs. 31,39,341.93, whereas
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
5/15

the audit report found only Rs. 29,34,817/- as the defalcated

amount. It was also stated that Cashier Anjani Kumar Mishra

(the petitioner) had the duty to collect the summary from the

bank computer each month and compare it with the cash book,

but he failed to do so. Therefore, it was concluded that the

petitioner had not discharged his duties, even though he was

posted for a short period of only about 3 months, from 9 th March

2011 to July 2011. After his transfer, he filed an application

before the Electricity Engineer on 11.07.2011 regarding the

accountancy and verification of the bank statement.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that during the investigation, no evidence was found to suggest

that the petitioner had conspired with Surya Narayan Sah to

defalcate money. Rather, it was found that the petitioner had

failed to discharge his duty as a cashier by not verifying the

bank statement each month. However, no statement from the co-

accused, Surya Narayan Sah, implicated the petitioner in any

defalcation. Moreover, the petitioner deposited the amount as

alleged in the audit report. He further submits that the petitioner

had no role in the verification of the bank statement. This

responsibility lay with the Assistant Electricity Engineer, Shri

Prashant Kumar, who was duty-bound to verify the accounts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
6/15

every month. However, this verification was not carried out. The

petitioner was posted for a very short tenure of about four

months. Therefore, although he was alleged to have failed in his

duties, there was no mention of any recovery of the alleged

amount from the petitioner when his Last Pay Certificate (LPC)

was issued after his transfer from Birpur (Dist-Supaul) to

Rosera (Dist-Samastipur) in July 2011. He further submits that

the defalcated amount has already been recovered from the

accused, Surya Narayan Sah, as confirmed by the audit report

dated April 2012. The petitioner submitted his joining in the

Birpur Sub Division on 11.03.2011, and after joining, he was

not directed to verify the bank account statement of Surya

Narayan Sah. The responsibility for verification of the account

lay with Assistant Engineer Prashant Kumar (Informant), who

failed to perform the verification on time. The defalcated

amount was later recovered from Surya Narayan Sah, as

confirmed by the audit.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated vide

Resolution No. 810 dated 08.09.2016 against the petitioner and

the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges levelled

against him and an order was passed vide Resolution No. 274
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
7/15

dated 25.02.2019 to pay him full salary of his suspension period

with effect from 28.12.2011 to 25.12.2016 in accordance with

rule.

9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that no case is made against the petitioner as alleged.

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of

Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs Deputy Superintendent of

Police, EOW, CBI & Anr, (2020) 9 SCC 636.

10. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the North Bihar

Power Distribution Company and the learned counsel for the

State have opposed the application of the petitioner by

submitting the case as alleged is make out against the petitioner

and the Court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the

petitioner.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari (Supra) has held as follows:-

“8. A number of judgments have held that the
standard of proof in a departmental
proceeding, being based on
preponderance of probability is
somewhat lower than the standard of
proof in a criminal proceeding where
the case has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya v.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
8/15

State of Bihar [P.S. Rajya v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 897] , the question before the
Court was posed as follows: (SCC pp.
2-3, para 3)
“3. The short question that arises
for our consideration in this
appeal is whether the respondent is
justified in pursuing the
prosecution against the appellant
under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947
notwithstanding the fact that on an
identical charge the appellant was
exonerated in the departmental
proceedings in the light of a report
submitted by the Central Vigilance
Commission and concurred by the
Union Public Service
Commission.”

9. This Court then went on to state: (P.S. Rajya
case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar,
(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] ,
SCC p. 5, para 17)
“17. At the outset we may point out
that the learned counsel for the
respondent could not but accept the
position that the standard of proof
required to establish the guilt in a
criminal case is far higher than the
standard of proof required to
establish the guilt in the
departmental proceedings. He also
accepted that in the present case, the
charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
9/15

proceedings is one and the same. He
did not dispute the findings rendered
in the departmental proceedings and
the ultimate result of it.”

10. This being the case, the Court then held:
(P.S. Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
897] , SCC p. 9, para 23)
“23. Even though all these facts
including the report of the Central
Vigilance Commission were brought
to the notice of the High Court,
unfortunately, the High Court took a
view [Prabhu Saran Rajya v. State of
Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No.
5212 of 1992, order dated 3-8-1993
(Pat)] that the issues raised had to be
gone into in the final proceedings
and the report of the Central
Vigilance Commission, exonerating
the appellant of the same charge in
departmental proceedings would not
conclude the criminal case against
the appellant. We have already held
that for the reasons given, on the
peculiar facts of this case, the
criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellant cannot be
pursued. Therefore, we do not agree
with the view taken by the High
Court as stated above. These are the
reasons for our order dated 27-3-
1996 for allowing the appeal and
quashing the impugned criminal
proceedings and giving
consequential reliefs.”
11. In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.
[Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of
W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 721], this Court held as
follows: (SCC pp. 594-96, paras 26,
29 & 31)
“26. We may observe that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
10/15

standard of proof in a criminal
case is much higher than that of
the adjudication proceedings.
The Enforcement Directorate has
not been able to prove its case in
the adjudication proceedings and
the appellant has been
exonerated on the same
allegation. The appellant is
facing trial in the criminal case.
Therefore, in our opinion, the
determination of facts in the
adjudication proceedings cannot
be said to be irrelevant in the
criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap
[B.N. Kashyap v. Crown, 1944
SCC OnLine Lah 46 : AIR 1945
Lah 23] the Full Bench had not
considered the effect of a finding
of fact in a civil case over the
criminal cases and that will be
evident from the following
passage of the said judgment:
(SCC OnLine Lah: AIR p. 27)
‘… I must, however, say that in
answering the question, I
have only referred to civil
cases where the actions are in
personam and not those
where the proceedings or
actions are in rem. Whether a
finding of fact arrived at in
such proceedings or actions
would be relevant in criminal
cases, it is unnecessary for
me to decide in this case.
When that question arises for
determination, the provisions
of Section 41 of the Evidence
Act, will have to be carefully
examined.’
29. We do not have the slightest
hesitation in accepting the
broad submission of Mr
Malhotra that the finding in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
11/15

an adjudication proceeding
is not binding in the
proceeding for criminal
prosecution. A person held
liable to pay penalty in
adjudication proceedings
cannot necessarily be held
guilty in a criminal trial.
Adjudication proceedings
are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence
of a little higher degree
whereas in a criminal case
the entire burden to prove
beyond all reasonable
doubt lies on the
prosecution.
31. It is trite that the standard of
proof required in criminal
proceedings is higher than
that required before the
adjudicating authority and
in case the accused is
exonerated before the
adjudicating authority
whether his prosecution on
the same set of facts can be
allowed or not is the
precise question which falls
for determination in this
case.”
12. After referring to various judgments,
this Court then culled out the ratio of those
decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of
W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] ,
SCC p. 598)
“38. The ratio which can be
culled out from these decisions can broadly
be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings
and criminal prosecution
can be launched
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
12/15

simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication
proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal
prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication
proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent
in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the
person facing prosecution in
the adjudication proceedings
is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal
prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings
by the Enforcement
Directorate is not
prosecution by a competent
court of law to attract the
provisions of Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section
300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the
adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing
trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature
of finding. If the exoneration
in adjudication proceedings
is on technical ground and
not on merit, prosecution
may continue; and (vii) In
case of exoneration,
however, on merits where the
allegation is found to be not
sustainable at all and the
person held innocent,
criminal prosecution on the
same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be
allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being
the higher standard of proof
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
13/15

in criminal cases.”
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal
v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p.
598, para 39)
“39. In our opinion,
therefore, the yardstick
would be to judge as to
whether the allegation in the
adjudication proceedings as
well as the proceeding for
prosecution is identical and
the exoneration of the person
concerned in the
adjudication proceedings is
on merits. In case it is found
on merit that there is no
contravention of the
provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceedings,
the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse
of the process of the court.”

12. I have heard and considered the submissions of

the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is

evident that the petitioner was posted for a short period and had

no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. The

petitioner had no role in the verification of the bank statement,

which was the responsibility of the Assistant Engineer.

Furthermore, the defalcated amount has already been recovered

from the accused, Surya Narayan Sah, as confirmed by the audit

report. It is an admitted position that in the departmental
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
14/15

proceeding, the petitioner has been exonerated from all the

charges levelled against him and an order was passed vide

Resolution No. 274 dated 25.02.2019 to pay him full salary of

his suspension period with effect from 28.12.2011 to 25.12.2016

in accordance with rule. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

resolution reads as under:-

tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us Jh feJk ds fo#)
lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh lkjh çfØ;k iw.kZ dj
i=kad 428 fnukad 13-05-2018 }kjk tk¡p çfrosnu
lefiZr fd;kA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us Jh feJk ds fo:)
yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks vçekf.kr ik;k gSA
tk¡p inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr tk¡p
çfronsu ,oa vU; lqlaxr dkxtkrksa dh lE;d leh{kk
dh xbZ- leh{kksijkar tk¡p inkf/kdkjh ds eUrO; ls
lger gksrs gq, l{ke çkf/kdkj }kjk Jh feJk ds fo#)
ladYi la[;k 810 fnukad 08-09-2016 }kjk lapkfyr
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vf/kjksfir vkjksiks ls eqä djrs gq,
fuyacu vof/k fnukad 28-12-2011 fnukad 25-12-2016
dk fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ osru dk Hkqxrku djus dk fu.kZ;
fy;k x;k gSA
rnuqlkj Jh feJk ds fo:) ladYi la[;k
810 fnukad 08-09-2016 }kjk lapkfyr foHkkxh;
dk;Zokgh esa vf/kjksfir vkjksiks ls eqä djrs gq, fuyacu
vof/k fnukad 28-12-2011 ls fnukad 25-12-2016 dk
fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ osru Hkqxrku djus dk vkns'k fn;k
tkrk gSA

13. From the afore-quoted, it is clear that the

disciplinary proceeding which was on the very same fact as the

present criminal prosecution has been decided on merits and the

petitioner has been exonerated and even the salary for the

suspension period is decided to be paid to him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026
15/15

14. In light of the above, there is no sufficient material

or evidence to continue the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari (Supra), the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by S.D.J.M.

Birpur in G.R. No. 380/2011 (arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case

No. 91/2011) is hereby quashed.

15. The application stands allowed.

16. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…