Suresh Kumar Dubey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—This revision u/s 397/401 of Cr. P.C. has been filed against the orders dated 20.06.2012 and 04.07.2012, passed in Sessions Trial No. 51/2011, by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, by which the learned trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC against the applicant.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') was posted as Lead Manager of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Pathariya from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 and during this period he was supplied 2579.18 Quintal of MDM food articles under Madhyan Bhojan Yojna for supplying the same to Link Samitis i.e. Pathariya, Sukha, Sarkhedi, Pipariya Champat, Khejrakala and Rajalwari but on verification of the stock register of Link Samitis, following short supply were found:-

The complaint was lodged by the Project Officer, Zila Panchayat, Damoh on 20.11.2009 and after completion of investigation above defalcation found, hence, the accused was charge-sheeted. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh vide impugned orders leveled charges against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 409 and 420 of IPC, against which this revision is being filed.

Learned counsel submits that the learned Court below failed to notice that the role of the Society is alike the post office, which only takes food articles and transport them so as to reach to the link societies. The accused has nothing to do with the stock being kept and maintained by the link societies. Even then the total of food articles lifted by the lead society is tallied by the food articles delivered to the respective link societies. Responsibility on failure of Manager of the particular link society cannot be fastened on the accused. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that Enquiry Officer Shri Rajendra Sharma filed a report that there is no defalcation at any level.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after perusal of the record it is crystal clear that on the preliminary enquiry report of Project Officer, Zila Panchayat Damoh Dr. Purnima Chourasiya above mentioned short supply was prima-facie found, which is also supported by the documentary evidence. The report filed by the Enquiry Officer Shri Brajendra Sharma can be a defence available to the accused and he has liberty to defend himself on the basis of this report during the trial.

At the stage of framing charges the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. At this stage the Court will consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge or not.

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 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the Court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference by way of this Revision petition against framing of charge.

The revision is dismissed summarily.