Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Maurya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Gwalior, Dated : 14.02.2018
Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
This Revision Petition under Section 397,
401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is directed against the charges
levelled against the petitioner in Special Case
No.7/2015 (VYAPAM) whereby charges punishable
under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 468 IPC and
under Section 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh
Recognized Examination Act, 1937, have been
framed against the petitioner.
The genesis of the prosecution lies in a letter
dated 24.12.2012 of the office of Additional
Director General of Police, Selection and
Recruitment, M.P. Police, addressed to the
Superintendent of Police of informing that as per
information from the source that one Jitendra
Singh of Bhind filed two application forms for the
PCRT-2012 with two different residential
addresses was thus allotted two role numbers and
the exam centres and appearance in written exam
was registered on both the exam centres on same
date and time. Thus, giving rise for suspicion. The
Superintendent of Police, Bhind was directed for
necessary action. The information was shared
with the CSP Bhind who conducted the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
preliminary enquiry. On questioning, the accused
person confessed that he had met one Amit
Sachan (A-2) of Kanpur few months back while
travelling to Gwalior. He stated that Amit Sachan
had offered to get him selected in the PCRT -2012
in return of Rs.1.5 lacs to which he agreed and
gave him his photograph and signature on blank
paper and other personal details. Thereafter,
accused candidate Jitendra himself filled one
application form of PCRT -2012 from a Kiosk at
Gwalior (Roll No.171185) and appeared in the
written exam at the Bhopal center in which he
passed and thereafter he himself appeared in the
PPT at Indore on 17.12.2012. Thus, prima facie, it
was found that Jitendra himself appeared at
Bhopal Center and arranged Amit Sachan to fill a
second form (Roll Number 146875) and appear on
the same in his place at Bhind Center. That vide
letter dated 08.01.2013 the SHO, Police Station
Dehat Bhind was directed to register a case
against the accused candidate Jitendra Singh and
the alleged impersonator Amit Sachan on the
basis of the preliminary enquiry and the initial
statement of Jitendra Singh. Accordingly, the
original FIR No.13/2013 was registered at PS
Dehat Bhind on 08.01.2013 against Jitendra Singh
Mourya (A-1) and Amit Sachan (A-2) for offences
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
3
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of IPC.
During investigation by the Madhya Pradesh
Police, role of the elder brother of accused
candidate Jitendra namely Narendra Singh
Maurya (A-3) came to light as middleman. On
being arrested, Amit Sachan in his memorandum
u/s 27 Indian Evidence Act confessed that he was
contacted by Narendra Singh Maurya for the job
and not Jitendra Singh. He also confessed to have
filled the second form and appeared at Bhind
Center. Narendra Singh also confessed of his
involvement in the crime in his memorandum
recorded u/s 27 Indian Evidence Act. Thus
Narendra was also made an accused in the case.
During investigation, the original documents viz.
OMR answer-sheets, relevant page of RASA, cover
page of question booklet w.r.t. both the roll
numbers were seized by MP Police from MPPEB.
Specimen thumb-impressions were obtained from
all the three accused and sent for expert
comparison with the original OMR sheets.
Meanwhile charge-sheet was filed against
Jitendra Singh A-1 (as the intended beneficiary
candidate), Amit Sachan, A-2 (as the
impersonator) and Narendra Singh, A-3 (as the
middleman) on 14.12.2014.
That in 2015, during the course of hearing
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
4
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
on Writ Petition (Civil) No.372/2015 along with
various petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its order dated 09.07.2015 passed in WP (Civil)
No.417/2015, titled 'Digvijay Singh Vs. State of
MP and others', transferred the investigation of
criminal cases related to VYAPAM scam and also
the cases of deaths alleged linked with VYAPAM
Scam, to the CBI for investigation. Accordingly
the original FIR No.13/2013 of PS Dehat Bhind
was taken over by CBI and a fresh case vide RC
217 2015(S) 0033/CBI/ACU-IV/AC-II was
registered on 01.08.2015 for investigation.
On transfer of the case to CBI, all the three
accused persons were re-examined thoroughly.
Jitendra Singh, A-1, during his examination stated
that he had himself filled the first form (Roll
number 171185) from an MP Online Kiosk at
Gwalior. He also stated that he himself appeared
in the written exam from the Bhopal Center. He
also stated that his elder brother Narendra Singh
had approached one Amit Sachan (A-2) of Kanpur
to arrange for his selection in the PCRT- 2012.
Accused Narendra Singh, during his
examination stated that he had approached Amit
Sachan for the selection of his younger brother
Jitendra Singh in the Police Constable
Recruitment Test -2012 An amount of Rs.1.5-2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
5
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
lacs was agreed upon as the monetary
consideration for the job. He also stated that the
second form (Roll Number 146875) was filled by
Amit Sachan from Kanpur. Narendra also stated
that after the result of the written exam was
declared and Jitendra had qualified the exam from
both the roll numbers, Amit had called him over
phone and asked for the money. However, no
money was given to Amit Sachan by him.
Accused Amit Sachan, during his
interrogation by CBI stated that he was
approached by Narendra Singh. He also stated
that the second application form was filled by him
in the name of Jitendra Singh from his own
internet cafe. Regarding the appearance in the
written exam at the Bhind Center, he stated that
he did not appear in the exam. He further stated
that he had approached one Prashant Kumar of
Hardoi, UP who was doing B.Ed. form a Kanpur
College to appear in the exam or to arrange a
solver for the job in return of monetary
considerations. Amit Sachan also stated that he
had provided the Test Admit Card of Jitendra
Singh (for roll number 146875) to Prashant and
after the written exam Prashant had called him
over phone and had informed that the exam has
been taken. Prashant also demanded the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
6
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
monetary consideration. However, since he did
not get any money from Narendra, the same was
never given to Prashant.
Based on the fresh examination of the
accused persons investigation of the case was
further carried out. Investigation of the case and
examination of other witnesses has revealed that
accused candidate Jitendra Singh Maurya (A-1)
and Narendra Singh Maurya (A-3), both brothers,
are residents of village -Barauli, PS-Mow, District
Bhind (MP). Narendra Singh was doing his MBBS
from Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal during the
relevant period i.e. 2012 and Jitendra Singh had
done his 12th and was pursuing B.Sc. during 2012,
A-1 was also preparing for different competitive
exams on 12th basis.
Investigation further revealed that while
doing MBBS from Gandhi Medical College Bhopal,
Narendra came into contact of Amit Sachan of
Kanpur through some common friend. Amit
Sachan owned an internet cafe. Investigation
revealed that Narendra Singh and Amit Sachan
entered into a criminal conspiracy alongwith
Jitendra Singh for getting Jitendra selected in the
PCRT -2012 examination. For this two application
forms were filled by the accused persons for
PCRT -2012. The first form No.80456335 was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
7
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
filled by the accused candidate Jitendra Singh
himself at an MP Online Kiosk at Dabra, Gwalior
against which roll number 171185 was issued by
Vyapam. The payment of the application fee was
made by cash to the Kiosk owner who in turn paid
the same through his MP Online Wallet. The
second application form no.80434580 was filled in
the name of Jitendra Singh by Amit Sachan from
his own internet cafe at Kanpur against which roll
number 146875 was issued by Vyapam. Amit
Sachan also made the payment of the application
fee from his own Savings Account
No.32133107785 through internet banking. Thus
two forms of PCRT 2012 were filled in the name
of A-1. For the form filled by the candidate
himself, the center allotted was Hema Higher
Secondary School, Bhopal and for the other form
filled by A-2, the exam center allotted was
Ramswaroop Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Bhind.
These facts and allegations on record led the
Trial Court frame the following charges against
the petitioner:
1&rqe vfHk;qDr ij ;g nks"kkjksi gS fd rqeus fnukad 30-
09-12 dks iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa Ny :i ls
vius HkkbZ ftrsUnzflag dks mRrh.kZ djkus dk "kM;a.k
cuk;k ftldh iwfrZ esa xyr rjhds ls ykHk ikus ds
mn~ns'; ls O;olkf;d ijh{kk eaMy e-iz- }kjk vk;ksftr
iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa dsUnz jkeLo:i f'k{kk
egkfo?kky; eqfM;k[ksMk vVsj jksM] fHk.M] e-iz- esa
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
8
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
ijh{kkFkhZ vfer lpku dks ftrsUnz ds LFkku ij ijh{kk nsus
ds fy, fcBkdj og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkknfo dh /kkjk
420 lgifBr /kkjk 120ch ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS\
2& rqe vfHk;qDr ij ;g nks"kkjksi gS fd rqeus mDr
fnukad] le; o LFkku ij iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa
Ny :i ls vius HkkbZ ftrsUnzflag dks mrhZ.k djkus dk
"k.k;a.k cuk;k ftldh iwfrZ esa rqeus O;olkf;d ijh{kk
eaMy e-iz- }kjk vk;ksftr iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa
ftrsUnz ds LFkku ij ijh{kkFkhZ vfer lpku dks fcBk;k
ftlus mldh mRrj iqfLrdk Hkjdj mDr nLrkost dh
dwVjpuk dj og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkknfo dh /kkjk 467
lgifBr /kkjk 120ch ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS\
3& rqe vfHk;qDr ij ;g nks"kkjksi gS fd rqeus mDr
fnukad] le; o LFkku ij iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa
Ny :i ls vius HkkbZ ftrsUnz dks mrh.kZ djkus dk
"kM;a= cuk;k ftldh iwfrZ esa rqeus O;olkf;d ijh{kk
eaMy e-iz- }kjk vk;ksftr iqfyl vkj{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa
ftrsUnz ds LFkku ij ijh{kkFkhZ vfer lpku dks fcBk;k
ftlus Ny djus ds iz;kstu ls ftrsUnz dh mRrj
iqfLrdk Hkjdj mDr nLrkost dh dwVjpuk dj og
vijk/k fd;k tks Hkknfo dh /kkjk 468 lgifBr /kkjk
120ch ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS\
4& rqe vfHk;qDr ij ;g nks"kkjksi gS fd rqeus mDr
fnukad] le; o LFkku ij O;olkf;d ijh{kk eaMy e-
iz- }kjk vk;ksftr iqfyl vkj{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk esa vius
HkkbZ ftrsUnz ds LFkku ij vfer lpku dks ijh{kk esa
cSBkdj vuqfpr lk/ku ds :i esa mldk mi;ksx dj
nq"izsj.k dj "kM;a= dj og vijk/k fd;k tks ijh{kk
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3@4 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS\
Though it is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the trial court has mechanically
framed the charges and that the trial court ought
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
9
CRR.591.2018
Narendra Singh Maurya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
to have considered that the case of the petitioner
is at par with one Prashant Kumar against whom
the CBI has not filed the charge-sheet. It is
contended that there being no material on record
to establish any of the charges levelled against
him the charges deserve to be quashed.
The respondents, on their turn, have
supported the charges. It is contended that there being ample material against the petitioner of having joined other co-accused in commission of the offence, the trial court is well within its right in framing the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 468 IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937 Considered the rival submissions. Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. deals with the charge. The essential of the framing of charge as held by the Supreme Court in "Gunwantlal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1972 SC 1756]" is that besides setting out material particulars it should also give the particulars as to time, place and person as also the provisions of law that are alleged to have been contravened so that the accused persons are conveyed with sufficient clarity, preciseness and certainty as to what prosecution intends to prove against him. At THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 10 CRR.591.2018 Narendra Singh Maurya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another the stage of framing of charge the Court is not required to screen the evidence or to apply the standard where the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused in trial. In "C.P. Malik and others Vs. The State [1999 Cri.L.J. 4525]", it is observed:
"5. At the stage of framing charge the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage the Court is not expected to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial."
Furthermore, Section 211 to 214 Cr.P.C. provide for content of charge, particulars as to time, place and person, manner in which the offence is committed. Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to alter or to add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. In "Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [AIR 1970 SC 359]", it is held:
"3. ....In our view the Criminal Procedure Code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge whether by the trial court or by the appellate court provided that the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 11 CRR.591.2018 Narendra Singh Maurya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him........."
In "State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and another [AIR 2004 SC 1189]", it is held:
"4. The law governing the trial of criminal offences provides for alteration of charges at any stage of the proceedings depending upon the evidence adduced in the case. If the trial is being held before a Court of Magistrate it is open to that court at any stage of trial if it comes to the conclusion that the material on record indicates the commission of an offence which requires to be tried by a superior court, it can always do so by committing such case for further trial to a superior court as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). On the contrary, if the trial is being conducted in a superior court like the Sessions Court and if that court comes to the conclusion that the evidence produced in the said trial makes out a lesser offence than the one with which the accused is charged, it is always open to that court based on evidence to convict such accused for a lesser offence. Thus, arguments regarding the framing of a proper THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 12 CRR.591.2018 Narendra Singh Maurya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another charge are best left to be decided by the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial. Otherwise as has happened in this case proceedings get protracted by the intervention of the superior courts."
In "Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat and others [AIR 2004 SC 2078]", it is held:
"10. Therefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."
In the case at hand, when the charges framed against the petitioner are adjudged on the anvil of above analysis and the facts on record, it cannot be said that the trial court was faltered in framing the charges as would lead to their quashment.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pd
Digitally signed by
PAWAN DHARKAR
Date: 2018.02.19
14:47:38 -08'00'