State of Haryana vs Bhopal Singh

M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral)

This is a revision by the State of Haryana whereby it has challenged the order of discharge passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Jind vide order dated 9.5.1994 discharging Bhopal Singh, respondent, in case FIR No. 4 dated 23.2.1989 under Sections 420/471/120B/468/511, Indian Penal Code, of P.S. State Vigilance Bureau Hissar. The State of Haryana has prayed that the order of discharge be set aside and the Magistrate be directed to proceed and try the accused in accordance with law.

Facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

Ramesh Kumar accused was a contractor supplying rice husk to Milk Plant, Jind. According to the prosecution, in collusion with the employees of Milk Plant Jind named Pirthi Singh Dangi, Bhopal Singh, Jagan Nath, Sukhi Ram, Bharpur Singh, Umed Singh and Dilbagh increased the quantity of rice husk in the records of the Milk Plant than the actual quantity of rice husk which had been supplied by him to Milk Plant, Jind. This was done by committing forgery in the Stock Register of the Milk Plant. Entries in the stock register were tampered with. A probe was held by the Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana Branch, Jind under the order of Government of Haryana. As a result of that probe, a case was registered. It was found that they had been tampering with the entries of the stock register with regard to the quantity of rice husk supplied by Ramesh Kumar. In G.R. No. 2503 dated 22.4.1987, 16.7 kgs. of rice husk was supplied. After tampering with, the entry was made to read 116.70 kgs. Similarly, against G.R. No. 2504 dated 25.4.1987, 16.85 kgs. of rice husk was received. After tampering with, the entry was made to read as 116.85 kgs. Probe indicated that there was tampering with in eight other entries. In each of those entries, digit "1" was prefixed. Ramesh Kumar, contractor, had purchased the rice husk from Messrs Jai Durga Rice Mills Jind. After committing forgery, the bills for payment presented by Ramesh Kumar were passed by Dilbagh Singh and others. Along with bills, police took into possession inspection note and Inward Gate passes dated 28.4.1987 and 21.4.1987. Bill dated 28.4.1987 was allegedly signed by Khushi Ram and Dilbagh Singh. Bill dated 21.4.1987 was allegedly signed by Dilbagh, Ramesh Kumar and Khushi Ram. Bill presented by Ramesh Kumar was allegedly signed by Ramesh Kumar, Bharpur Singh, Pirthi Singh and Bhopal Singh. Inspection note dated 21.4.1987 of Milk Plant Jind was prepared by Umed Singh and signed by Bhopal Singh and Jagan Nath. According to the prosecution, Bhopal Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Khushi Ram, etc., thus, committed forgery.

Vide order dated 27.3.1993, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jind found a prima facie case against all the accused and, therefore, he ordered them to be charged under Ss. 420/268/471/511/120B, Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved from the order of discharge, Dilbagh Singh, Umed Singh, Bharpur Singh, Jagan Nath, Pirthi Singh and Bhopal Singh went in revision to the Court of session separately.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind dismissed the revisions filed by Umed Singh and others. He accepted the revisions filed by Dilbagh Singh and Bhopal Singh.

State of Haryana has come up in this revision to this Court against the order dated 9.5.1994 discharging Bhopal Singh.

I have heard the learned Asstt. Advocate General Haryana, the learned counsel for Bhopal Singh, and gone through the record. At the time of framing charge in a warrant case instituted on police report, all that the Court has to see is whether upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks it necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused if he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. If upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable, he shall frame a charge against the accused and try him. The Magistrate will frame charge if he feels that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, on considering the police report and the documents attached thereto. Sections 239 and 240, Cr.P.C., may be adverted to in this regard. Section 239 reads as follows :

"If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."

Section 240 is in the following terms :

"240 (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether be pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

So far as Bhopal Singh is concerned he was a dairy engineer. He is indicted in the statement of Partap Singh. Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, has detected the signatures of accused Bhopal Singh on Q. 5. This shows prima facie that Bhopal Singh also forged this document. Bhopal Singh passed bill for payment presented by Ramesh Kumar, contractor. ; Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Bhopal Singh was dairy engineer. It was he who brought to the notice of the General Manager, Milk Plant, the bungling going on in the weighments of rice husk being brought into the Milk Plant, Jind. Thereupon the General Manager constituted a committee consisting of representatives from the boiler wing of Engineering Section, Store and Security with a view to confirming weights of supply of rice husk and that committee was to record the actual weight. Payment was made on the basis of this recording. It was submitted that Bhopal Singh was one of the members of that committee. In my opinion, learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not have taken that evidence into account for discharging Bhopal Singh because that evidence could be taken into account only after Bhopal Singh had entered his defence after the charge had been framed and prosecution witnesses examined and his statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C., recorded.

It would bear repetition that at the stage of framing charge, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of commission of that offence. In this behalf, Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & others, AIR 1980 SC 52, can be cited with advantage. If, on the basis of the materials on record, court could come to the conclusion that commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction, the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. In view of what I have said above, this Criminal revision is accepted, the order of Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The Magistrate (who is to try the case) is directed to draw up charges against Bhopal Singh and try him in according with law.

JUDGMENT accordingly.