Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Agrawal vs Union Of India on 14 January, 2016
Author: S. K. Gangele
Bench: S. K. Gangele
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2014
Gaurav Agrawal & another
Petitioners
versus
Union of India
Non-applicants
Coram :
Honâble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Honâble Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar.
Shri Rajmani Bansal and Shri Prashant Chourasiya, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for
the respondent/Union.
d on : 02.12.2015
ORDER
(Pronounced on 14.01.2016) Per S. K. Gangele J.
Petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 24.06.2014, by which the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In the year of 2007, a scheme of Universal Service Obligation was launched by the Government of India to provide telecom facilities in remote areas. The petitioners are the proprietors of firms named as M/s. Govind Agrawal and M/s. Anant Electrical. The firms were awarded execution of electrical contract work by B.S.N.L. at 32 and 24 U.S.O. sites established at District Shivpuri and District Bhind respectively.
3. C.B.I. received a complaint that excess payment had been made to the petitioners by the officers of B.S.N.L. An investigation was carried out by C.B.I. The C.B.I. after investigation found that excess payment in regard to 18 U.S.O. sites of district Bhind of Rs.6,41,228.38/- was made to the firms on account of excess length of A.C.S.R. conductors. At district Shivpuri also excess payment of Rs.2,52,385.70/- was made to the petitioners and further an amount of Rs.5959/- was also paid. After detailed investigation, the C.B.I. recorded finding that the petitioners Mr. Govind Agrawal and Mr.Gaurav Agrawal had willfully with fraudulent means received an amount of Rs.12,04,578.86/- and a loss was caused to B.S.N.L. with the connivance of B.S.N.L. employees namely Mr. R.K. Mishra and Mr. U.L. Lodhi. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the C.B.I. mentioning the details of the transactions as well as documentary and oral evidence.
4. After considering the evidence, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners vide impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no charges can be framed against the petitioners for the offences as mentioned by the Court in the impugned order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:
(a) Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259.
(b) Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929.
(c ) Mir Nagvi Askari vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 718.
(d) Parminder Kaur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 322.
(e) State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy and others reported in 1977 SCC (Cri)
404.
6. Contrary to this, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. J.K. Jain has contended that there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against the petitioners. It is further contended by Shri Jain that at the time of framing of charges it cannot be said that whether the petitioners can be punished or not, however, prima facie Court has to consider the fact that whether there is evidence to establish prima facie charges or not.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another reported in 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 609 has held as under in regard to obligation of the Judge at the time of framing of charges:
â10. 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 to 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 Judge 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.â
8. In the present case, it is mentioned by the trial Judge in the impugned order that there is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that with the connivance of the petitioners a loss was caused to the department (B.S.N.L.) and the petitioners had gained substantially. Wrong measurements were recorded in the measurement books. Alongwith the charge-sheet the measurement books have been filed. It is also mentioned in the charge-sheet that the petitioners had prepared forged bills and received the amount. The work which was shown in the bill was never done. The petitioners were entrusted to complete the work under U.S.O. scheme at Shivpuri and Bhind districts. They submitted forged bills of electrical installation, S.I.T.C. transformers sub-station work and fan work and received excess payment. Minute details of the acts of the petitioners have been mentioned in the charge- sheet. Near about 315 documents have been filed alongwith the charge-sheet and 44 witnesses have been named to be examined by the prosecution in support of the charges.
8. Looking to the documents on record and the facts of the case, in our opinion, prima facie, a case is made out for framing charges against the petitioners. Hence, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Gangele) (Ms. Vandana
Kasrekar)
Judge Judge
Vkt.