Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ramesh Chander Aged 55 Years vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir Through ... on 13 September, 2023
Author: Mohan Lal
Bench: Mohan Lal
Sr.No. 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
CRMC No. 204/2013
IA No. 250/2013
Reserved on : 16.05.2023
Pronounced on: 13.09.2023
Ramesh Chander aged 55 years, S/O Late Sh. ....Petitioner(s)
Hari Chand, R/O village Arazi Tehsil & District
Samba.
Through :- Ms. Meenakshi Slathia, Advocate
V/s
State of Jammu & Kashmir through Incharge ....Respondent(s)
Police Station Crime Branch Jammu.
Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
J U D G M E N T
1. Petitioner by the medium of instant petition preferred under Section 561-A [now Section 482 Cr.pc] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the „Code‟) has assailed order dated 30.07.2013 rendered by the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu, whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner in FIR No. 21/2010 under Sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC in case titled State of J&K Vs. Babu Ram & Ors.,
2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.07.2013, petitioner has assailed it‟s legality, propriety and correctness and has sought it‟s quashment on the following grounds:-
(i) that a complaint was forwarded to Crime Branch by Parvez Ahmed Malik Director CAPD Jammu vide his office letter No. 79/G/PV/1815-17 dated 25.08.2010, wherein, it was alleged that on 05.08.2010 incharge Asst. Director CAPD Udhampur reported that he conducted a surprise checking of food store Udhampur wherein a huge quantity of food grains/sugar was found short in food store;
the committee constituted to conduct physical verification submitted it‟s report which tentatively revealed a shortage of food grain/sugar in food store CAPD Udhampur costing ₹35,06099/- whereby incharge store keeper Babu Ram was placed under suspension who by misusing his official position and in conspiracy with other officials misappropriated the aforesaid amount causing huge loss to the state exchequer, the said accused remained absconding alongwith records on this FIR No. 21/2010 for offences under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC r/w 5(2) P.C. 2 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 Act Svt. 2006 was registered in Crime Branch; during the course of investigation it was found that accused Babu Ram was posted as incharge Store Keeper Udhampur vide order No. 1646- 48/AD/CAPD/Udh dated 01.02.2010 by Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur namely Sh. T.P. Singh and subsequently he took over charge of food store Udhampur on 01.02.2010, seized record was scrutinized by crime branch Jammu and found that 8704.96 qtls of ration amounting to ₹ 64,62,244/- as the PDS rates were misappropriated by the said accused Babu Ram in connivance with other officials; besides this, during investigation it was found that an amount of ₹ 8,40,000/- & ₹ 7,83,500/- was deposited in Govt. Treasury by the said accused fraudulently on behalf of ration dealers but the permit has not been issued in respect of this ration; scrutiny of seized record reveals that 42 numbers of permits treasury vouchers against which ration was fraudulently shown issued to the dealers were not reflected in issue register, 7 number of trucks loaded with different kinds of food grains were dispatched to food store Udhampur from different units but the same were not entered in stock/receipt register by the said accused, the shortage of food grains misappropriated by the accused during the course of investigation was worked out to the tune of ₹ 74,07,370.13 including cost of empty bags, it was established during investigation that Sh. T.P Singh the then Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur had issued posting order of accused Babu Ram as incharge store keeper food store Udhampur fully aware of the fact that class 4th employee cannot be posted at any responsible force;
(ii) that after the transfer of T.P Singh, Sh. Ramesh Chander was posted as Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur and during his period Sh. Babu Ram functioned as TSO Udhampur, the daily supply from stores was monitored by TSO and Asstt. Director, the store keeper submits by weekly statement of all the receipts/dispatches of ration to TSO/AD but they failed to monitor the functioning of store for their ulterior motives which is also violation of PDS control order 2001, by weekly and monthly off take statements were also not checked by officers concerned during their posting which indicates their connivance with store keepers in misappropriating the food grains, all these officials who were entrusted with huge stock of food grains in a well knit conspiracy with each other dishonestly misappropriated and embezzled the food grains by not only manipulating the records and committing forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust but also misusing their official position causing huge loss to state exchequer for their gain which culminated in production of charge sheet against the four (4) accused including the petitioner who have been charged for commission of offences punishable under sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC;
(iii) that the petitioner remained posted as Asstt. Director Udhampur for a brief period of 3 months w.e.f. 04.05.2010 to 04.08.2010, there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner which would have warranted the passing of impugned order against him;
(iv) that the Learned Judge has not appreciated the facts and law in its proper perspectives while passing the impugned order, as such, the 3 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 order is bad under law, the impugned order has been passed on no evidence against the petitioner thus is based upon non-application of judicial mind, the evidence on record in no way connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence;
(v) that the law on the issue of charge/discharge is settled, what is required to be seen by a competent Court at the stage of charge/discharge is, whether prima-facie the evidence on record suggests commission of offence by the accused for which he needs to be tried, sufficiency of record thus is a prime requirement while reaching to the conclusion whether the accused requires to be charged/discharged;
(vi) that a perusal of the impugned order would demonstrate that the Learned Trial Judge has not given any reason for charging the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences which is a legal infirmity, thus the impugned order deserves to be quashed, in the face of allegations made in the charge sheet and the documents enclosed with challan it does not disclose the commission of alleged offences by the petitioner much less prima-facie case, therefore, it is travesty in law to proceed against the petitioner for commission of alleged offences;
3. Respondent has sought the dismissal of the petition on the grounds, that none of the constitutional, legal or statutory rights of petitioner have been infringed or violated by the answering respondent which is sine-qua-non for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon‟ble Court. It is contended, that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to file the present writ petition, the writ petition is grossly misconceived and being without any legal foundation merits outright dismissal, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands as there is suppression as well concealment of material facts from the court, the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in a writ petition for which the petitioner cannot take the recourse to the remedy under the writ jurisdiction of this court. It is stated, that the petitioner alongwith other officials was entrusted with huge stock of food grains, and in a well knit conspiracy with each other dishonestly misappropriated and embezzled the food grains by not only manipulating the records and committing forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust causing huge loss to state exchequer in the sum of ₹ 74, 07,370.13/- but subsequent gains to themselves. It is moreso contended, that the petitioner alongwith two more accused namely, Babu Ram and T.P. Singh have been prosecuted vide sanction accorded by the Govt. order No. 46-GAD (Vig) 2012 dated 23.11.2012, the trial court has passed well reasoned impugned order for framing charges against 4 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 accused/petitioner after perusal of the charge sheet under section 173(2) Cr.pc r/w statements of the prosecution witnesses and documents annexed therein, and there is sufficient material on record to presume that petitioner/accused has committed the offences alleged against him.
4. Ms. Meenakshi Slathia Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused while seeking quashment of impugned order dated 30.07.2013 framing charges against accused, has vehemently argued, that the occurrence relates to dated 05.08.2010 whereby on surprise checking of food store by Asstt. Director CAPD Department Udhampur accused Babu Ram the then store keeper is alleged to have committed embezzlement/misappropriation of 8704.96 qtls of ration whereby shortage of food grains have been estimated at ₹74,07,370.13/-. It is argued, that there is not an iota of evidence against petitioner, the evidence on record in no way connects the petitioner with commission of offence, at the time of framing charge prima-facie case against the accused has to be shown by the prosecution, perusal of impugned order demonstrates that Ld. Trial Court has not given any reason for framing of charges against petitioner for commission of offences alleged against him under Sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC and the impugned order is mechanical and shows no application of judicial mind. To buttress her arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the rulings reported in;
(i) (2008) 10 SCC 394 [Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi VS State Of Maharashtra];
(ii) (1996) 9 SCC 766 [Satish Mehra V/S Delhi Administration& Ors.];
(iii) (1990) 4 SCC 76 [Niranjan Singh Karam Singh V/S Jitendra Bhimraj Bijaya & Ors.];
(iv) AIR 1979 SC 366 [Union of India VS Prafulla Kumnar Samal & Anr.] &
5. Mrs. Monika Kohli, Ld. Sr. AAG for respondent has supported the impugned order framing charges against petitioner/accused by vehemently canvassing arguments, that petitioner alongwith other officials was entrusted with huge stock of food grains in a well knit conspiracy with each other dishonestly misappropriated and embezzled the food grains by not only manipulating the records and committing forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust causing huge loss to state exchequer in the sum of ₹ 74, 07,370.13/- but subsequent gains to themselves. It is argued, that the 5 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 petitioner alongwith two more accused namely, Babu Ram and T.P. Singh have been prosecuted vide sanction accorded by the Govt. order No. 46- GAD (Vig) 2012 dated 23.11.2012, the trial court has passed well reasoned impugned order for framing charges against accused/petitioner after perusal of the charge sheet under section 173(2) Cr.pc r/w statements of the prosecution witnesses and documents annexed therein, and there is sufficient material on record to presume that petitioner/accused has committed the offences alleged against him.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Sr. AAG for respondent. I have perused the averments of the petition and objections/para-wise reply filed by the respondent. I have also gone through the relevant law on the subject matter meticulously and scanned the ratios of judgments relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
7. Chapter XXIII of Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 deals with the provisions of "OF TRIAL BEFORE A COURT OF SESSION".
Section 269 of the said Chapter deals with the provisions of framing of charges against the accused and mandates that if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed offence which is exclusive triable by the court he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. In the case in hand, by the impugned order dated 30.07.2013, Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu has framed charges against petitioner/accused in the following manner:-
COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ANTI CORRUPTION JAMMU State Vs. Babu Ram and Ors.
Case FIR No. 21/2010 of P/S Crime Branch Jammu Under Section 5(2) P.C. Act, Sections 420,409,465,467,468,471 RPC r/w Section 120-B RPC.
CHARGE SHEET I, Jaffer Hussain Beg, Additional Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Jammu, charge you Ramesh Chander S/o Late Hari Chand R/O Village Arazi Tehsil and District Samba, the then Asstt. Director, CA&PD Udhampur as under:-
"That, during the year 2010, you being a public servant posted as Asstt. Director CA&PD Udhampur, after hatching a criminal conspiracy with other accused while abusing your official position with intention to cheat and commit criminal breach of trust and in pursuance of said conspiracy, deliberately ignore the illegal posting of Babu Ram S/O Kaka Ram as Incharge Storekeeper, Food store at CA&PD Udhampur who dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated the fake official record including the Stock Receipt Register and Bi-weekly statements and has also fraudulently deposited an amount of ₹ 7,83,500/- with Government Treasury Udhampur 6 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 on behalf of Ration Dealers for misappropriating ration knowing the fact that the permits had not been issued in respect of this ration, also 42 permits/treasury vouchers against which ration was fraudulently shown to have been issued by him to the dealers were not reflected in issued register and also seven numbers of trucks loaded with food grains received by him has not been entered in the Stock/Receipt register and out of these, three trucks have been shown by him in Bi-weekly statements submitted to Asstt. Director/TSO Udhampur which was to be effectively monitored by you and regulate supplies, which you failed to do, is also violation of PDS Control Order 2001 and of norms issued by Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department No. 65-CA&PD of 2009 dated 03.08.2009, as such indicates your connivance with other accused for misappropriating the entrusted food grains including the costs of empty bags to the tune of ₹ 74,07,370.31, causing loss to the state exchequer and, thereby you committed offences under sections 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) punishable under section 5(2) of P.C. Act, section 420,409,465,467,468,471 RPC r/w section 120-B RPC and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charge"
Sd/-
Additional Sessions Judge,
Dated: 30.07.2013 Anti Corruption Jammu
8. The moot point before this court for determination is, "whether there is a ground for presuming that the petitioner/accused has committed offences alleged against him which warrant framing of charges against him" ?
In 2008 (10) SCC 394 [Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi V/s State of Maharashtra] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Hon‟ble Supreme Court while appreciating the provision of law regarding framing of charges under sections 227/228 Cr.pc in paras 8&16 of the judgment held as under:-
8. These were not sufficient to make out a case for conviction of the accused and some suspicion or motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of charge against them. Accordingly, all the four accused/petitioners were discharged.
16. Chapter XVII of the Code lays down the procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions, pursuant to an order of commitment under Section 209 of the Code. Section 227 contemplates the circumstances where under there could be a discharge of an accused stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section228. It provides that upon consideration of the record of the case the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to decide whether there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him. 15.
It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited 7 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if un-rebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. (See: State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra)]. In 1996 (9) SCC 766 [Satish Mehra V/S Delhi Administration& Ors.] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused, Hon‟ble Supreme Court while appreciating the provisions for discharge of an accused under Section 227 of Cr.pc (Central) in paragraph 9 of the judgment held as under:-
9. Considerations which should weigh with the Sessions Court at this stage have been well designed by the Parliament through Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') which reads thus:
227. Discharge. 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 no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section. When the Court is of opinion that there is ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible. Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding". (Vide State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018, and Supdt.
And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, 1979 Cr.L.J. 1390: AIR 1980 Supreme Court
52).
In 1990 (4) SCC 76 [Niranjan Singh Karam Singh V/s Jitendra Bhimraj Bijaya & Ors.] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Hon‟ble Supreme Court while discussing the portions of framing of charges under section 227/228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in paras 4&7 of the judgment held as under:-
8 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/20134. Under Section 14(3) of the Act a Designated Court is conferred with the powers of a Court of Sessions and is required to try any offence under the Act 'as if it were' a Court of Sessions. The procedure which it must follow at the trial is the one prescribed in the Code for the trial of cases before a Court of Sessions. This is of course subject to the other provisions of the Act which means that if there is any provision in the Act which is not consistent with the procedure stipulated in the Code for such trials, it is the procedure in the Act that shall prevail. The procedure for trial before a Court of Sessions is set Chapter XVIII of the Code. Section 225 places the public prosecutor in charge of the conduct of the prosecution. Section 226 requires him to open the prosecution case by describing the charge against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to bring home the guilt against the accused. Once that is done the Judge has to consider whether or not to frame a charge.
Section 227 of the Code reads as under:-
"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."
Under this section a duty is cast on the judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. On the other hand if after such consideration and hearing he is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, he must proceed to frame a charge as required by Section 228 of the Code. Once the charge is framed the trial must ordinarily end in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. This is in brief the scheme of Sections 225 to 235 of the Code.
7. Again in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., 1979(4) SCC 274 this Court observed in paragraph 18 of the Judgment as under:-
"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 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion rounded upon materials before the Magistrate 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", From the above discussion it seems well-settled that at the Sections 227 -228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a 9 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face-value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
In AIR 1979 SC 366 [Union of India VS Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.] further relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused, Hon‟ble Supreme Court while determining the duty of a court at the stage of framing charges or discharging the accused, in Head Note A of the case law and in paragraphs 10&24 of the judgment held as under:-
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227--Discharge of accused--Question of legality and justification--Determination of duty of Court--Framing charge where evidence discloses grave suspicion--Or discharge if two views are equally possible--Held, on facts, discharge justified.
10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
24. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court that there was no sufficient ground for trying the accused in the instant case. Moreover, 10 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 this Court would be most reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of the two courts in the absence of any special circumstances.
9. Ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner lay down an invariable principle of law, "that at the stage of framing charges against accused the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and the court for the said limited purpose has power to „sift‟ the evidence, it cannot be expected by the court to accept the prosecution case as gospel truth, the court should not act merely as a „post office‟ or a „mouth piece‟ of prosecution and if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence the charges should be framed against the accused". Applying the ratio‟s of judgments (Supra) to the facts of the case in hand, it is apt to reiterate here, that from the impugned order dated 30.07.2013 it is apparent that there are allegations against petitioner for hatching of a criminal conspiracy alongwith other accused for committing forgery/manipulating the fake official record committing criminal breach of trust. Impugned order demonstrates that the trial court has not evaluated the material and documents on record to view on the face of it whether it discloses all the ingredients of offences attributed to the petitioner. There is not a whisper in the impugned order that how petitioner has hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused in preparing/manuplating the fake official record dishonestly and fraudulently which led to the misappropriation of food grains/sugar of the value of ₹ 74,07,370.31/- to the state exchequer by principal accused Babu Ram (the then incharge storekeeper Udhampur). From the impugned order it is not depicted that which of the prosecution witnesses have stated before the investigating officer regarding the criminal conspiracy and preparing the fake official record by petitioner. As per the prosecution case, petitioner has remained posted as Assistant Director CAPD Udhampur for a brief period of 3 moths w.e.f. 04.05.2010 to 04.08.2010, while as, on 05.08.2010 the then Assistant Director CAPD Udhampur reported that he conducted a surprise checking of food store Udhampur wherein huge quantity of food grains/sugar was found short in food store and the committee constituted submitted its report indicting incharge storekeeper Babu Ram for the said loss to the state exchequer which was worked out during the investigation 11 CRMC No. 204/2013, IA No. 250/2013 to the tune of ₹ 74,07,370.31/-. The para-wise reply submitted by the respondent does not depict that petitioner had knowledge about dishonest intention of principal accused Babu Ram who was having dominion and control over the store of food grains/sugar, whereas, the petitioner was not in any way having entrustment of the store. At the worst, it can be said that petitioner lacked the supervisory control, but in order to attract the criminal liability, the prosecution has to show by legal evidence that there was dishonest or fraudulent intention on part of petitioner in the case in hand for the crime attributed to him. From the threadbare perusal of para- wise reply filed by the respondent, it is discernible that there is no material to the effect that petitioner had dishonest or fraudulent intention, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was in league/having conspiracy with other accused persons to commit the crime attributed to him. In regard to principal accused Babu Ram, there is enough material to show that he was entrusted with the store of food grains and by falsifying accounts/registers of the store to defraud the state exchequer he committed the misappropriation/embezzlement of ₹ 74,07,370.31/-, therefore, rightly indicted for commission of offences as alleged in the para-wise reply.
10. For the forgoing reasons and discussion, I am of the considered opinion, that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against petitioner/accused in the case in hand. Accordingly, petition is allowed, consequently, the impugned order dated 30.07.2013 framing charges against petitioner is quashed. The ad-interim order of this court dated 22.08.2013 staying the proceedings in the trial court shall stand vacated and the trial shall commence against rest of the accused persons.
11. Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected CMPs (if any).
(MOHAN LAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
13.09.2023
Ayaz Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes