Allahabad High Court
Parmatma Prasad Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 November, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3332 of 2019 Revisionist :- Parmatma Prasad Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Rai,Shri V. P. Srivastava (Senior Advocate),Shri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 1 (Anti-Corruption Act) Varanasi in Special Trial No. 25 of 2017 (State vs. Parmatma Prasad Verma) under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B I.P.C. and section 13 (1)(C), 13 (2) of Anti-Corruption Act, P.S. Naugarh, District Chandauli whereby discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the accused-revisionist in this case has been bailed out. Attention is drawn to page-133 of the paper book and it is argued that the witness Munna son of Bechai who is said to have given statement against the accused-revisionist during further investigation was found to be not in existence as is evident from the Parcha SCD-18 dated 27.3.2014 in which, it has been clearly mentioned that when the Investigating Officer tried to find out about the said witness, no one was found in the village by that name. Similarly, the other witness namely Ramji Yadav, son of Bechai Yadav, who is said to have given statement against the accused-revisionist, was also not found to be existing, which is available at page-135 of the paper book. Further, it is argued that the witness Ram Chandar has also refused in further investigation that he had deposed on 15.10.2012 before the Investigating Officer. It is further argued that other witness namely, Ravi Kumar Dubey has stated in further investigation that when his statement is said to have been recorded by earlier Investigating Officer on 14.12.2012, he had gone on study tour to Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh. Citing these pieces of evidence, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that when these witnesses were not available for giving their statements before the Investigating Officer, how the first Investigating Officer has recorded their statements and they cannot be relied upon as these are the prosecution witnesses, hence on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses itself, it is clear that the revisionist-accused was not at all involved in this occurrence nor is there any iota of evidence against him on record and yet the trial court has erroneously dismissed his discharge application by the impugned order.
As against this, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and has drawn the attention to Parcha SCD-27 dated 10.12.2014 in which it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer that by the evidence collected during investigation, it has emerged that the DFO, Parmatama Prasad Verma, revisionist, Accountant Anand Bahadur were directly connected with the payment under the scheme and the Investigating Officer, Desh Raj appears to have held the revisionist to be not guilty prima-facie under some kind of influence/pressure. Attention is also drawn to CD 104-A dated 15.10.2012 in which statements of five independent witnesses were recorded to the effect that they used to collect money at the instance of Ranger/DFO (Revisionist) and the amount was used to be realized from the Labourers and whatever amount was collected, used to be deposited in the office. All these accused were involved in preparing forged muster roll and false receipt and the money used to be drawn illegally. Attention is also drawn to page-23 of the counter affidavit, which is a part of case diary dated 14.12.2012 in which statement of watcher was also recorded, who has also stated that Munna son of Tengri had stated that he was resident of village Jhumria Naugarh and that the money used to be collected with the Budget Clerk, Anand Bahadur and he was involved in preparation of muster roll with wrong name and whosoever was not giving money, used to be threatened that he would be got ousted from service by DFO (Revisionist). Citing these pieces of evidence, it is argued by the learned A.G.A. that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionist to frame charge against him under the above-mentioned sections because he being the Head of the Department, cannot avoid being held responsible for such irregularity or wrongs committed under his nose. The trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application. Further, he has argued that this is revision proceedings, in which only correctness of the order has to be judged and the evidence is not required to be scrutinized in depth. Therefore, the said order needs to be upheld.
I have gone through the impugned order. The trial court has recorded in it that from the perusal of the case diary, it is found that the Investigating Officer has found that the accused-revisionist was the then DFO, Chandauli who inclusion with the other co-accused had flouted the mandatory directions provided under the Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Yojna and was instrumental in purchase of cement and sand etc. for the construction of check dam and brick guard and had prepared false document and by doing so had embezzled an amount of Rs.23.00 lacs because they were found not to have made payment to the labourers in appropriate manner and illegal realization used to be made from them. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that from the perusal of Parcha 104-A of the case diary, it is evident that the independent witness Munna has given statement that as the work of whatever amount used to be performed, the said amount used to be deposited in an account in two installments as soon as the amount used to be credited, about it, Ranger and SDO Saheb used to be informed. 2% amount used to be given to the Bank Manager. It is also mentioned that the wife of the Forest Guard was shown material supplier by way of showing forged receipt and purchase was shown to have been made for worth Rs.23.00 lacs which has been embezzled. At that point of time, the revisionist was posted as DFO. The prosecution sanction has also been obtained against the revisionist. Therefore, opinion is expressed that there was no sufficient ground to discharge the accused-revisionist in the present case of offence under sections 409, 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (1) (C) of Anti-Corruption Act.
After having heard argument of both the sides and having perused the record, I find that there is serious allegation against the accused-revisionist to be instrumental in embezzlement of Rs.23.00 lacs which money belongs to Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Yojna in which various irregularities are found to have been committed in making payment to the labourers, who used to be engaged. There is also allegation of preparation of false muster roll. Since all the illegal activities happened during his tenure, he is found to be also involved in this activity. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the four witnesses, who have been named-above and their statements were recorded by the first Investigating Officer in this case, on the basis of which revisionist was found to be prima-facie involved, in fact, they were found to be either not in existence or to have not given statement due to not being available on the said date, it is subject matter of evidence which will be looked into by the trial court because once previous Investigating Officer had collected evidence and on the said basis prima-facie case is made out against the revisionist, any piece of evidence, which has been subsequently gathered, which seems to be sculpatory evidence against the accused-applicant, the same shall be taken into consideration by the trial court at the time of trial. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ram Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Supreme Court has held that even in the case of strong doubt, charge can be framed. Para no. 19 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage."
In view of law of Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor (Supra), I do not find that there is any sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order. No infirmity is found in the impugned order as there seems to be strong suspicion against the accused-revisionist to be involved in this case. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 AU