Pooja And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh, J

All the revision petitions arise out of the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No. 136/2018, whereby charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were framed against the revision petitioners in connection with Crime No. 25/2018 registered at Police Station Station Road, Ratlam.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Shri Anil Bhana, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam City, conducted inspections of several fair price shops operating in Ratlam City, namely Keshav Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Ganesh Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Pooja Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Matesree Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Sainath Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Annapoorna Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., Maharshi Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., and Durga Women Primary Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd. During the inspection, various irregularities were allegedly detected in the distribution of food grains.

The revision petitioners are stated to be contractors associated with the SAMAGRA Portal, officials of the Nagar Nigam, Ratlam, and officers of the Food Department. Following registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out. The investigation allegedly revealed that Family IDs were generated on the SAMAGRA Portal without following the prescribed procedure and in the names of non-existent families. It was further alleged that food grains under the National Food Security Act, 2013 were shown as distributed without actual distribution. The investigation also found instances where quantities of food grains exceeding the beneficiaries' entitlement were entered in the records, the number of eligible beneficiaries was artificially inflated, and fictitious family members were added.

According to the prosecution, officials of the Nagar Nigam, contractors and operators of the SAMAGRA Portal, officers of the Food Department, and operators of the fair price shops acted in conspiracy with one another, causing a loss of approximately ₹10 crores to the Government in the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The investigation implicated 23 persons, including the present petitioners in the three revision petitions.

Challenging the framing of charges, Criminal Revision No. 5031/2019 has been preferred on the ground that the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are lacking. There was no deception right from the inception. The ingredients of Section 471 of the IPC are also not available. There was no entrustment of property, which is an essential ingredient under Section 409 of the IPC. There is no evidence of any conspiracy. There is also no evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences.

The Criminal Revision No.4957/2019 has been preferred on the ground that even treating the case of prosecution as gospel truth, then no ingredients of the sections under which charges have been framed are attracted in the present case. There is neither any mens rea nor criminal intention to commit offences. The revision petitioner no.4 Mahendra S/o Gallulal Thammar assigned the work of Rashan distribution. Similarly, revision petitioner no.3 Saloni D/o Prakash Chandra Parihar, revision petitioner No.2 Ishika, revision petitioner no.5 Kirti and revision petitioner no.6 Pratik were involved in the offences. Pratik was interested with the other works relating to banking etc. He was not to distribute the Rashan. Revision Petitioner No.4 Mahendra was appointed only on 24.07.2015 and has resigned on 09.11.2016. The revision petitioner no.5 Kirti was appointed in the year 2016 and after 4 months thereof she resigned. No case is made out.

Criminal Revision No.5222/2019 has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court ignored the inquiry report submitted to the Collector wherein it was clearly found that the imsappropriation was done by interpolating the names by creating forged family ID by the Food Department which was uploaded by the PSO Machines to the integrated portal of the Food Departmnet. No involvement of the petitioners was found.

The trial Court failed to appreciate that as per the procedure published in the gazette notification dated 25.03.2015, the ration cards are to be issued by the Assistant Supply Officer/Junior Supply Officer of the Food Department only after the proper verification. The scheme does not provide for any role to be played by any of the fair price shops or their sales men. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the irregularity alleged in the case is that the names of the persons have been wrongfully added in the list by the officers of the Nagar Palika Nigam, Ratlam and Food Department Ratlam. There is evidence on record to suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the case.

Heard.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the revision petitions.

Perused the record.

The allegations relate to the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Annapoorna Yojna under the National Food Security Act, 2013. The alleged irregularities came to light during an inquiry conducted pursuant to the Collector, Ratlam's letter dated 06.04.2014 and the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam dated 13.01.2018. The inquiry disclosed the concerted involvement of fair price shop operators, personnel managing the Samagra Samajik Security Portal, officials of the Municipal Corporation, and officers of the Food Department. In view of the alleged modus operandi, the role of each individual or department cannot be considered separately. Therefore, no ground for discharge is made out. The contentions raised by the revision petitioners pertain to matters of defence, which cannot be examined at this stage. Accordingly, all the revision petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.

A copy of this order be placed in connected petitions also.