M.L. Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

R.B. Dixit, J.

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 14-2-2000 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 1/99 of First Additional Judge, Shivpuri, thereby framing charge under Sections 467 and 471 of IPC and also u/s 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has filed this revision praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings aforesaid against him.

The facts in brief shorn of details lie in a narrow compass:

Some Water Proofing material was purchased for Mahuar Colony, Karera and further it was found that this material was not of ISI mark and of inferior quality. Similarly in the work of plantation the muster rolls were forged in name of fake persons which were verified by the petitioner in his capacity as SDO (RBC) Karera Sub-Division.

It has been urged for the petitioner that the muster roll was prepared by some other person and similarly the water proofing material was purchased by order of some higher authority. In the circumstances it can not be presumed that merely by its verification the petitioner had knowledge about any foul play in preparation of the muster-roll or purchasing of the material which were found of different quality. The allegations of the prosecution are that the petitioner was also involved in the purchasing of the water proofing material on high rates on the basis of forged rate list and caused loss to the department by misusing his position as public servant. Even otherwise an Officer who verifies the purchase material is expected to know whether the purchase material is of the same quality for which orders were placed and bills are obtained. Similarly while verifying the muster-roll the verifying officer is expected to know whether its entries are correct or not. Thus, there is prima facie evidence indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence against him. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is not expected to discuss the evidence on merit.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Udai Narayan and Another, , has made it clear that the High Court in exercise of its revisionary power can not discharge the accused persons by advancing elaborate arguments on scanning and scrutinising the evidence and materials produced by the prosecution. It has further been observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, that the High Court in Criminal Revision can not appreciate and weigh the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the accused could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can not be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence if any, can not show that accused committed the particular offence. In such case there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence prima facie available against the accused petitioner, the revision has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Criminal Revision dismissed.