Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2016
1 Cr.R. No.764/2016
(Ashok Khare Vs. State of M.P.)
30/11/2016
Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Awasthy, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
With consent of parties, heard finally.
The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12/05/2016 passed by XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No.83/2016, whereby charges have been framed under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the present petitioner/accused.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence as alleged above on the ground that between May, 2013 to December, 2015, petitioner while working as Regional Officer in Regional Office No.6, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior has obtained the Voter Card, Bank Passbook, Photographs as well as Adhar Card etc., from two persons namely Ranjeet and Vishal and while using those documents, instrumental in appointment of them as sweepers (daily wager) and took the salary of those two employee for the period from June, 2013 to December, 2015 without letting them know about the said fact. The salary amount of those two persons have been alleged to be pocketed by the present petitioner and therefore, he has been tried for the offence as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order of framing of charge and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because the prosecution has not submitted any appointment letter issued by the present petitioner whereby the said two persons Ranjeet and Vishal got appointment. Similarly, the prosecution has not submitted any documents which may implicate him for any forgery. According to counsel for the petitioner, offence under Section 409 of IPC is not made out because the petitioner has 2 Cr.R. No.764/2016 (Ashok Khare Vs. State of M.P.) not defrauded any person while acting as an agent of the State because he has never being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer- chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property as a public servant, therefore, provision of Section 409 of IPC are not attracted in the present case. Similarly, in absence of any appointment letter, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner has forged the appointment letters of said two persons.
He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, 2011 (3) SCC (Cri.) 657 and pleaded for quashment of charges framed by the trial Court against him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer so made by the petitioner and while relying upon the statement of Ranjeet and Vishal contended that the petitioner has obtained the documents viz. Voter Card, Adhar Card, Bank Passbook and assured them for getting an employment in the Municipal Corporation.
After receiving the notice from the municipal corporation when they did not turn up for performing their duties, then they came to know about the fact regarding their alleged appointment and reimbursement of money and the alleged act of the petitioner.
The report of Assistant Account Officer and Cluster Officer of Municipal Corporation dated 25/12/2015 is also on record, which indicates the nature and modus operandi of offence and accused. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
In the statements of Ranjeet s/o Kallu r/o Mahalgaon, 3 Cr.R. No.764/2016 (Ashok Khare Vs. State of M.P.) Karoli Mata, Gwalior as well as Vishal s/o Mansingh r/o Kilagate, Gwalior, they have categorically named the petitioner with specific allegation and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence has been stated specifically.
The charges levelled against the present petitioner are interconnected and intermingling. These charges are due to peculiar conduct of the petitioner, wherein he has been implicated under Sections 409, 420, 460 and 471 of IPC prima facie.
The bank passbook of those two persons are part of record and perusal of those passbooks reveals that the amount has been withdrawn from the account of those two persons. It is a matter of evidence wherein, the innocence/involvement of the petitioner would be tested.
At this juncture, no definite opinion in respect of alleged innocence in committing the offence by petitioner can be given and no conclusion can be arrived at. The petitioner has remedy to face the trial and establish his innocence in the trial.
As per allegations, as a public servant, petitioner has devised methodology by committing forgery by giving appointment to those two persons and then took benefit of misconduct for personal benefits.
The judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the present set of facts and is distinguishable on facts.
Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioner against the framing of charges is he0reby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc