Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmansingh vs Police Headquarters on 1 May, 2018
M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017
Laxmansingh
vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Headquarters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent / State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 01/05/2018) This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of First Information Report bearing crime No.197/2017, registered at Police Station-Alot, District- Ratlam against the applicant for offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,459 of IPC, as also the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings in criminal case No.197/2017 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam.
02. Brief facts relevant to the case are that the applicant was Principal of Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Alot and Incharge Block Education Officer at the time of the incident. For the financial year 2016-2017 the budget was allotted in different heads for purchasing furnitures, books, magazines, sanitary M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 2 wares and stationery items for 20 educational institutes situated within Alot block, District Ratlam. As per M.P. Store Purchase Rules, (for brevity 'The Rules'), for purchasing these articles, invitation of quotations were required and after receiving the articles from the qualified bidder, verification of the purchased articles was also necessary for the satisfaction that the articles supplied by the qualified bidder are according to the quality and quantity of the purchase order. Thereafter the bills of the supplied items will have to be produced in the treasury. However, the applicant in gross violation of 'The Rules' made disbursement of Rs.90,31,514/- to Kendriya Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Indore without even getting the delivery of items said to have been purchased. It is further alleged that despite not having power to draw the amount of Rs.90,31,514/- he prepared and passed bills and vouchers with regard to purchase and made payment of the aforesaid amount.
03. It is also alleged that the applicant neither informed the Principal of the schools regarding sanction of amount for purchase of furnitures, books, magazines, sanitary wares and stationery items, therefore, the Principal of the schools could not invite meeting of SMDC of Schools for purchase of the aforesaid articles. When the matter came to the knowledge of the District Education Officer, who had conducted enquiry and filed a written complaint dated 30/03/2017 against the applicant at police station-Alot. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R bearing crime No.197/2017, registered at Police Station-Alot, District- Ratlam against the applicant for offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,459 of IPC and investigation was initiated against the applicant. After completion of investigation, M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 3 charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant.
04. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant that the amount of Rs.90,31,514/-was sanctioned on 15 th and 16th of March, 2017 and the same has to be expended till 31/03/2017. The applicant after getting the allotment has conducted meeting with the Principals of the concerned schools and according to their requirements, prepared a list of the articles, which are to be purchased and issued the supply order to the Kendriya Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Indore by following 'The Rules'. It is further submitted that looking to the short span of time, the Manager, Kendriya Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Indore had given an undertaking to supply the articles within a period of 18 days and upon the applicant being satisfied that the purchased articles are according to the order and upto the quality, then the amount of Rs.90,31,514/- will be transferred to the account of the aforesaid institution.
05. Counsel further submitted that when the applicant came to know that certain rules and regulations with regard to purchase of aforesaid articles have not been complied with, then vide communication dated 31/03/2017, he cancelled the purchase order and asked the concerned vendor to deposit the amount of Rs.90,31,514/- with the treasury and the same has been deposited on 03/04/2017. Communication regarding the above transaction was sent to the District Education Officer, Ratlam, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed embezzlement of the Government money. It is further submitted that the applicant with utmost good faith purchased the articles, therefore he has not committed any cheating or forgery.
M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 406. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer submitting that there are ample evidence on record to implead the present applicant with the present crime.
07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
08. On perusal of the documents, it appears that on 16/03/2017 budget was allotted by Directorate of Education, Bhopal for purchase of furniture, books, magazines, sanitary wares, stationery items and other articles for 22 educational institutions comes within Alot Education Block, District Ratlam, at that time, the applicant was working as Block Education Officer, Alot. The settled norms in purchasing articles had not been followed by him. The Officer In-charge was expected to adopt a course of conduct with due diligence of the norms in letter and spirit. While functioning as Block Education Officer, applicant had engaged in local purchase on many occasions, in spite of that he acted over looking 'the Rules' and governing administrative instructions. When the instructions was issued by the Director, Public Education officer on 16/03/2017, it did not authorize procurement of articles after 31/03/2017 and the purchases so made were treated as unauthorized in terms of the letters dated 15/03/2017 and 16/03/2017, by which the applicant has committed temporary embezzlement of the government money.
09. I am not intending to go through the merits and demerits of the defence raised by the applicant. At this stage, the documents filed along with charge-sheet are to be perused but the material brought on record by the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. The allegation against the applicant was that when there was restriction that the sanctioned amount should be M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 5 utilised for purchasing of aforesaid articles within 31/03/2017, however, without receiving the articles, the applicant has made payment to Kendriya Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Indore by violating the instructions issued by the Directorate of Education, Bhopal and 'The Rules'. Purchase Rules require due adherence, by overstepping himself and permitting the supply of articles after 31/03/2017, the applicant has violated the norms and admission and his action as above is required to be prosecuted. Although applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.90,31,514/-, however, he has deposited the same only when the District Education Officer made an enquiry regarding the aforesaid irregularities, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant remained bonafide while executing his duties.
10. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Rajiv Thapar vs. Madanlal Kapoor 2013(3) SCC 330, has cautioned the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of 'The Code' as under:
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 6 without allowing the prosecution/ complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice."
11. Having carefully examined the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (Supra), and on consideration of M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017 7 the material brought on record by the applicant, it is clear that interference under Section 482 of 'The Code' is not warranted. Further detailed discussion on the material furnished by the applicant will prejudice their defence before the trial Court. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of 'The Code' is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.05.02 18:41:03 +05'30'