Nawal Kishroe Raikwar and Another vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in S.T. No. 113/2011 on 12.8.2011, whereby charges under Sections 420/120-B, 409/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and 471/120-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was the Secretary and petitioner No. 2 was the Accountant in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kurwai, Distt. Vidisha. Petitioner No. 1-Naval Kishroe lodged a written report stating that Sanjay Panthi, who is working as a daily wager labourer in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, has stolen two receipt books bearing Nos. 97 and 104 of the year 2009 and on the basis of these receipt books, has recovered the Mandi fee from licensees, but the amount so recovered as Mandi fee has not been deposited in the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. When Sanjay Panthi was asked, he has admitted in writing that he has misappropriated the amount. The matter was reported to the office of Mandi Board and after enquiry direction for lodging the FIR has been given. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the case has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners alongwith Sanjay Panthi. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned in para 1 of this order. Being aggrieved, this revision has been preferred.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is illegal and improper. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the learned trial Court to consider all the material available on record before framing charges because the process is not a mere formality. The learned trial Court without considering all the material, framed the charges on the basis of presumption. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 has himself lodged the FIR against Sanjay Panthi and he has been made an accused in the case. There is no prima facie material against the petitioners to connect them with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that during the course of departmental inquiry and investigation by police, Sanjay Panthi has made a confession that after receiving the receipt books, he misappropriated the Mandi fee, in spite of this, charges have been framed against the petitioners. It is prayed that impugned order framing charges be set aside.

The learned Panel Lawyer has supported the impugned order and submitted that petitioner No. 1 was the Secretary and petitioner No. 2 was the Accountant while Sanjay Panthi was merely a daily wager labourer in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It was the duty of the petitioners to recover the Mandi fee and deposit the same in the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, but the petitioners with the conspiracy have committed cheating and forgery. The learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

As per the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 1-Naval Kishore Raikwar, allegation has been made against Sanjay Panthi, who is a daily wager working in Mandi Samiti, that he has stolen receipt books No. 97 and 104 of the year 2009 and on the basis of these receipt books, has recovered Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee, but has not deposited the said fee in the office of Mandi Samiti. The matter was reported to Mandi Board, Bhopal, and on the basis of enquiry report, action was sought against Sanjay Panthi, a daily wager. However, from the report of enquiry done by S.L. Chhapre and R.K. Shrivastava, Senior Auditors, M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Bhopal, it is clear that from the receipt books bearing Nos. 97 and 104 heavy amount of Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee has been recovered and on the basis of forged bank slip, the amount is shown to have been deposited in the bank and thus a huge amount has been embezzled. It was recommended that for committing the offence Naval Kishroe Raikwar, Secretary, and Vijay Kumar Deshpande, In-charge Accountant, alongwith Sanjay Panthi are responsible, therefore, it is recommended that Naval Kishroe Raikwar and Vijay Kumar Deshpande be immediately suspended and FIR be lodged. However, petitioner No. 1-Naval Kishore has lodged the FIR only against Sanjay Panthi, who is merely a daily wager.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sanjay Panthi has confessed that he has stolen the receipt books bearing Nos. 97 and 104 and has recovered the Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee. He has also confessed that on the basis of forged documents, he has shown that the amount has been deposited in the bank and that he has misappropriated the entire amount which has been recovered. Therefore, in view of categorical admission of Sanjay Panthi, petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Learned counsel further submits that Naval Kishroe has himself lodged the report, therefore, he cannot be made an accused.

It is true that Sanjay Panthi has admitted that he has stolen the receipt books and recovered the Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee and has not deposited the same in the office of Mandi Samiti, but from the perusal of the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 1-Nand Kishroe, it is evident that FIR has been directed to be lodged on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the officers of the Mandi Board, Bhopal, but from the enquiry report of the officers of Mandi Board, it is evident that the offence has been committed by Naval Kishroe Raikwar, Secretary, Vijay Kumar Deshpande, In-charge Accountant, and Sanjay Panthi. It is very surprising that Sanjay Panthi, who is merely a daily wager and not at all responsible for recovering Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee has been made an accused and the persons whose duty is to recover the aforesaid fee and deposit the same in the bank have been left.

From the statements of Rajesh Shrivastava, S.L. Chhapre, Lakhan Singh, Anoop Singh, Rajendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar, it is revealed that the petitioners were responsible for recovering the Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee and deposit the same in the bank. Sanjay Panthi was merely a labourer, therefore, he is not supposed to recover the Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee and deposit the same in the bank and he had been permitted by petitioners to recover the Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee. Thus, the statements of these witnesses prima facie indicate that petitioners have conspired with Sanjay Panthi and in consequence of conspiracy, the amount recovered as Mandi Fee and Nirashrit Fee has been misappropriated and documents have been forged in the commission of offence.

At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.

In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, , the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments, in my considered opinion, there is ground for presuming that petitioners have committed the offence, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners. I see no illegality or irregularity in framing charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B, 409/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and 471/120-B. This petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.