Ram Kishore Mishra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 47/2009, whereby the charge of offence punishable u/s 409 of IPC was appended against the applicant. The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, a temple of Baldevji is situated at Panna. Since it was a public temple, its administration is with the collector. The collector had appointed officers to administer the daily activity of pooja and various festivals in the temple. The applicant was also a member of the committee of administration, appointed by the collector. The complaint was moved by other members and citizens, who were visiting the temple that the applicant misappropriated a sum of Rs. 23,401/- from the gifts received to the temple from various visitors and the amount given by Tahsildar Panna for a particular purpose. The collector had given a notice to the applicant and a reply was received. The applicant denied allegations made in the complaint. However, after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the applicant has only raised the objection that the applicant was not a public servant as defined in the provisions of section 21 of IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on so many judgments passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court as well as other High Courts in that respect. When Part (X) of Section 21 is under consideration in the present case then, the judgments which are not related to the Part (X) of Section 21 are not required to be cited in the present order. Only one judgment can be cited on this point, which was passed by the Division Bench of Sind High Court in case of "S.E. Naylor and another Vs. Emperor", [AIR 1941 Sind 30]. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not a public servant and therefore, no charge u/s 409 of IPC could be framed against him. At the most, charge u/s 406 of IPC could be framed, which is triable by the Court of Magistrate.

If the provisions of Part X of section 21 are perused, which are shown as under:

Section 21. Part (X) - Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment, or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district.

Only two important ingredients are to be considered that the accused should be an officer whose duty is fixed to receive or to keep any property relating to people of any village, town or district. In the present case, if various letters written by the Collector and other authorities are perused then, it would be apparent that the collector appointed an administration committee to administer the Pooja and festivals of Shri Baldevji temple, Panna. Ex. P/13 is a letter head of that committee, in which the first name shown is of the applicant and it is apparent that one treasurer was also appointed in the committee and gifts collected in the temple were to be deposited with the Tahsildar etc. and a sum was to be given by the Tahsildar from time to time to observe the various festivals and therefore, the applicant was appointed as nominated officer from the side of the Collector to administer about the Pooja and festivals of the temple and therefore, prima facie, the applicant was an officer duly appointed to receive the money or gifts given to the idol by the devotees and to use such a gift in administration of temple Pooja and festival etc. Under such circumstances, prima facie, the applicant was not only the officer duly appointed but, he was also the person, who was required to collect money from public in general for public purpose.

The judgment passed by the Division Bench of Sind High Court has dealt with the matter of Port Trust Estate and due to factual difference that judgment cannot be applied here.

Thus, the defence of the applicant that he was not a public servant cannot be accepted at this stage, whereas, he was duly appointed as a member in the Management committee and he was working as a member of Management committee duly appointed by the collector. Hence, prima facie the applicant was a public servant in the eye of law and therefore, no mistake of law has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in framing the charge of offence u/s 409 of IPC against the applicant. Consequently, there is no basis by which, the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed by confirming the impugned order. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and for speedy trial. It is expected from the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the trial may be completed within next six months.