Pramod Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicants have filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the

order dated 16/11/2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T. No.107/2016 whereby framed the charges against applicant No.1 for

the offence punishable under Sections 409 read with Section 511 Â and 409 read with Section 120-B of IPC and against applicant No.2 for the

offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 511 and 407 read with Section 120-B of IPC and also prays to quash the charge and

discharge the applicant of the charge.

The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, is that Police party of Police Chowki Khaddi, Police Station, Rampur Naikin seized loaded vehicle 407

bearing registration No.M.P.17/C 4551 in the market of Village Khaddi. This vehicle was having 28 quintal 52 kg rice and 5 quintal 20 kg wheat.

Driver of the truck was Bagulle Singh and another person was Pramod Singh Baghel who was Prerak (conniver) of Vikash-Sheel Mahila Swa-

sahayata Samooh and Vijay Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh Ratwar. These groups engaged in preparation of mid day mill and grain material received

from the Govt. Fair Price Shop situated at Ratwar.

Applicant No.1-Pramod Kumar Singh being Prerak (conniver) of both the groups received rice and wheat of above mentioned quantity from the

shop of fair price shop, Ratwar under the scheme of Mid Day Mill and Sanjha Chulha Scheme run by the Government. The above mentioned both

Swa-sahayata groups have been assigned to prepare the mid day mill for the children. Applicant No.1-Pramod Kumar Singh loaded the received rice

and wheat in the truck. Driver of the truck was Babulle Singh and instead of giving the rice and wheat to the Swa-sahayata groups with mala fide

intention taken the wheat and rice in the market of Khaddi for selling and receiving money illegally.

Pramod Kumar Singh was entrusted with grain to supply the same to Swa-sahayata groups who was a Prerak (conniver) of the group. The wheat

entrusted to him as a Prerak (conniver) and loaded in the truck to deliver that grain to the Swa-sahayata groups, however, instead of doing this, they

committed breach of trust and trying to sell out that grain in the open market. B.S. Rai, Assistant Supply Officer, Sidhi submitted a report and Suresh

Singh Maravi, Assistant Supply Officer lodged written report in the Police Chowki Khaddi , Original Crime No.51/2016 registered at Police Station,

Rampur Naikin against Pramod Kumar Singh and Babulle Singh for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 for the offence

punishableand after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

Learned trial Court framed charges against applicant No.1- Pramod Kumar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section

511, 409 read with Section 120-B of IPC and against applicant-Babulle Singh for the offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 511, 407

read with Section 120-B of IPC.

Being aggrieved by that framing of charge, both the applicants have filed this revision on the ground that learned trial Court completely

misrepresented the provisions of law while framing the charge without proper appreciation of material on record. Learned trial Court has not

appreciated the material properly. The Court must ensure that the material available on record which if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. There is

no material available against the applicants to make out any ground for any offence, therefore, pray to set aside the impugned order of framing charge

against the applicant and pray to discharge the applicants.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State, on the other hand, while opposing the aforesaid prayer submits that there is sufficient material

available against the applicant. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant on wrong grounds, therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal

revision.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with charge sheet as the applicant has filed copy of the

documents filed along charge sheet.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants has raised a ground in this revision that the Court should consider that there are sufficient material

available which if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. This Court is not satisfied with this argument. Before dealing the matter, it is pertinent to

consider the definition enumerated under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. which read as under :

“227. Discharge.â€"If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of

the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall

discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Framing of charge.â€"(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence whichâ€

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief

Judicial Magistrate (or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the

case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate) shall try the offence in

accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused

shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

On bare perusal of both the sections, it reveals that both are connected to each-other. If, on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and

produced by the prosecution before the Court, if the Court considers that there is not a sufficient ground for proceeding further against accused, the

Court shall discharge the accused after recording the reasons and if, in the opinion of Court that there is a ground for presuming that accused has

committed an offence, then Court frames charge. Meaning thereby it is not the stage where the Court should consider the merit of the evidence

whether if the material left unrebutted would lead to conviction. The Court is to see that if there is a ground for presuming that accused has committed

an offence, ground for presuming means there should be a material available on record and if the Court found that there is a grave suspicion of

committing the offence, the Court may proceed for framing the charge. At the stage of framing charge, the Court should, prima facie, satisfy itself

that there is a ground for presuming that accused has committed offence.

On the basis of above preposition of law, perused the documents filed along with charge sheet. Applicant- Pramod Kumar Singh appointed as

Prerak (conniver) of Vikas-sheel Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh Village Ratwar and his wife is a member of that society and he is also doing the work

of Vijay Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh, Ratwar.

As per report of Junior Supply Officer, Distt. Sidhi, applicant-Pramod Kumar Singh look after the business of Vikas-sheel Mahila Swa-Sahayata

Samooh and Vijay Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh and he is the Prerak (conniver) of both the groups maintained the record of both the groups. CEO,

Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin, Distt. Sidhi wrote a letter to SHO, Police Station, Rampur Naikin and clearly stated that vide order dated

10/04/2013 Pramod Kumar Singh is appointed as Prerak (conniver) for Village Panchayat, Ratwar Sakshatarata Kendra. This fact shows that he was

entrusted with duty to conduct mid day mill scheme and Sanjha Chulha Scheme. The documents filed along with charge sheet shows that Chief

Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin issued authority letter for receiving the monthly food material for mid day mill scheme in favour

of Vijay Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh, Ratwar and Vikas-sheel Mahila Swa-sahayata Samooh, Ratwar. On the basis of that authority letter, Pramod

Kumar Singh received food-grain from the fair price shop situated at Ratwar and loaded the truck which was driven by applicant No.2-Babulle Singh.

That food grain had to deliver to the school and handed over to Swa-sahayata Samooh. Instead of handing over that food grain, applicant-Pramod

Kumar Singh along with driver Babulle Singh had transported that food grain to another place i.e. market of village Khaddi for selling the same.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for cleaning of the food grain, that food grain was taken to Village Market Khaddi and did not for

selling and submitted some certificate of Panchayat. However, the documents filed along with charge sheet i.e. letter issued by Chief Executive

Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin dated 17/5/2016, no order has been issued pertaining to cleaning of the grains. This also, prima facie,

shows that the defence taken by the applicants is after thought which is to be considered during trial. So far as the oral evidence and documents

collected during investigation is concerned, this Court finds that there is a prima facie material available along with charge sheet to proceed against the

applicants for the charged offence. There is no need to interfere in the impugned order of framing charge.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya Vs. Jagat Narain Thapak and another, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 15 i9n para-17 has held as

under :

“17. Now coming to the second aspect as to the legality of the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the matter. The standard

required by the Magistrate while taking cognizance is well settled by this court in catena of judgments. In Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh

& Another, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court explained the meaning of the word 'cognizance' holding that ""...In legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial

notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating

proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially"". We may note that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has to satisfy himself about

the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the complaint and at this stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for

conviction. It may not be out of context to note that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is also not required to record elaborate reasons

but the order should reflect independent application of mind by the Magistrate to the material placed before him.â€​

In view of aforesaid discussions and the legal provisions as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya (supra), the

revision is devoid of substance and the same is hereby dismissed.