Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Pushpraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 960
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
1
HIGH COURT OF MP:BENCH AT INDORE
Single Bench: Before Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
Cr.R. No.6254/2018
Dr. Pushpraj Singh & Ors.
vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
--------------------------
Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Paresh Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
-------------
ORDER
(Passed on 22/08/2019) The applicants have preferred the present revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against order dated 26/11/2018 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 11/2018, whereby the charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 and 409 of the IPC have been framed against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2; whereas the charge for offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant No.3-Charul Singh.
2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the present revision petition is that the applicant No.3-Dr. 2 Charul Singh is the son of applicant Nos. 1 and Applicants No.1 and 2 were working as Medical Officer in District Hospital Ratlam. Applicant No.3 is running a hospital in the name and style of Samarpan Hospital and Research Center and Gyan Sono Center, Ratlam. An appropriate authority under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC & PNDT Act') constituted a team for inspection of Samarpan Hospital and Research Center and Gyan Sono Center, Ratlam run by applicant No.3. On 01/05/2014, the team conducted search of applicants hospital and research center and seized the equipment and other materials during the inspection. After such ceiling of machines and other materials, a show-cause notice was issued to applicant No.3 for cancellation of registration of the hospital. It is further alleged that on 09.05.2014 after 9 days of conducting the search, another order was issued by appropriate authority and Collector Ratlam constituted another team consisting of six members for opening of the lock of the hospital and after minute inspection of the premises for taking further action. The team opened the lock of the premises and during the inspection and preparation of inventory, it was found that medicines which were meant to be used in District hospital Ratlam was found in the hospital and accordingly, on 23.05.2014, a written complaint was made by respondent No.2 against the applicants at Police Thana - Station Road, Ratlam. On the basis of this complaint, police registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 315/2014 for commission of offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the IPC against the applicants. After completion of the 3 investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for the trial.
3. The applicants have moved an application under Section 227 of the IPC for discharge and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court declined to accept the prayer made by the applicants, vide order dated 26/11/2018 and framed the charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 and 409 of the IPC against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and under Section 411 of the IPC against the applicant No.3, vide order dated 04/12/2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicants have preferred the present petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No.2 made a complaint in the year 2013 against the respondent No.2, who is presently working as Chief Health and Medical Officer, District-Hospital, Ratlam and pursuant to which, vide order dated 01/02/2015, M.P. Medical Council held him guilty of professional misconduct and debarred him from practicing Modern Scientific System of Medicine (Allopathy) as a medical profession for a period of one year. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was having grudge against the applicants and for fulfillment of his oblique designs and intentions, he got initiated aforesaid proceedings against the applicants. It is also submitted that panchnama (Annexure P/3) dated 01.05.2013 does not mention any medicine that was found in the premises of the hospital. Subsequently, locks were opened in contravention of section 30 of PC & PNDT Act and also corresponding provisions of search and seizure of Cr.P.C. and, thereafter it was stated that the medicines were found in the premises of the hospital. According to the applicants the medicines were planted in the 4 hospital to falsely implicate the present applicants. There is no evidence available on record to show that applicant No.3 was making any arrangement of the medicines/injections/kits to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, the entire proceedings drawing against the applicants have been malafide. Respondent No.2 also moved an application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. and have got a counsel appointed to assist the Public Prosecutor, which clearly shows that the respondent No.2 is interested in falsely implicating the applicants. However, the trial Court has not considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly, framed the charge against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court passed in the case of Asoke Basak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2010) 10 SCC 660, Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC INDIA LTD. & ORS., (2006) 6 SCC 736 and State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari, 2000(2) MPLJ and said that it is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. It the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the charges framed against the applicants be quashed and they may be discharged.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there is sufficient material available on record against the applicants for 5 commission of offence punishable under Sections 379, 409 and 411 of the IPC, therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge for alleged offence against the applicants. It is also submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, hence, it may not be called for any interference by this Court.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record, it appears that the proceedings were initiated against the applicants under 'PC & PNDT Act' on the orders of the appropriate authority. During the inspection some medicines, injections and kits were found in the premises of Samarpan Hospital and Research Center and Gyan Sono Center, Ratlam. They were identified by Batch Nos. and such medicines were not available in the open market and they were supplied only through the District Hospital. Under these circumstances, prima facie there is strong suspicion against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 that they supplied the aforesaid medicines, drugs and kits to the applicant No.3. Whether on 01/05/2014, when search was conducted of applicant No.3 Center, any Drugs, Injections or Kit was found or not, it is a matter of evidence and it cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge.
8. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the 6 Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.
9. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 , is relevant, in which it has been held as under:
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC
76)."
10. Considering the aforesaid material placed before the Court, prima facie there is sufficient ground to frame charges under Sections 379, 409 and 411 of the IPC against the applicants and the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge for alleged offence against the applicants. So far as the judgments relied by the applicants are 7 concerned, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Taking this view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to continue the trial regarding charges framed against the applicants.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court alongwith the records for information and necessary compliance.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
Santosh Kumar Tiwari
2019.08.22 15:43:57
+05'30'