Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2023
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 688 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
UPENDRA PATHAK S/O SHRI RADHAKRISHNA PATHAK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WAREHOUSE
KEEPER TAPTI WARD MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI D.K. TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH POLICE
STATION MULTAI BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI K.S. PATEL - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is revision coming for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in S.T. No. 56 of 2021 whereby the charges under Sections 407/120-B, 409/120-B, 420/120-B & 411 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been framed against the applicant.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 29.03.2019 the Junior Supply Officer, Signature Not Verified Rajesh Shrivastava has lodged FIR against the applicant and other co-accused SAN Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of the I.P.C. and JYOTISHI Date: 2023.02.23 13:12:09 IST Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act alleging that on 26.03.2019 at 2 about 11.45 pm he had received an information and instruction from the District Supply Officer, Betul that two trucks loaded with rice are standing near Radhkrishna Mill Kharsali, Betul. Thereafter, he reached on the spot and found that two trucks bearing registration Nos.MP-09 HF-5567 and MP-09 KC-6905 were illegally transporting the rice, which is to be distributed under the Public Distribution Scheme. Present applicant along with other co-accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy for such illegal transportation. After completing investigation, police has filed charge sheet under Sections 407/120-B, 409/120- B, 420/120-B & 411 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the present applicant. Applicant has been implicated in crime on the statement of co-accused persons and trucks were standing near the premises of the applicant's rice mill. It is also submitted that there is no evidence against him for framing of charge under Sections 407/120- B, 409/120-B, 420/120-B & 411 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, because the material, which was in dispute, was found in the trucks in front of his go down. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in S.T. No. 56 of 2021.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued in support of the findings recorded by the trial Court and opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant.
Signature Not VerifiedSAN 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI6. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider prima Date: 2023.02.23 13:12:09 IST 3 facie evidence available on record. It cannot consider the evidence extraneously. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously at this stage. A strong suspicion, if found upon the material and presumptive value supports; the Court should frame charge against the accused person.
7. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police. (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 : AIR 2005 SC 359 and State of J& K v. Sudershan Chakkar (1995) 4 SCC 181 : AIR 1995 SC 1954)."
8. In this context, it is apt to refer to the decision in the case of Bhawna Bai Ghanshyam and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 217, wherein in paragraphs 13 and 16, Hon'™ble the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"13. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge-sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge-sheet show a prima facie case against the accused- respondents 1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused to be seen.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. After referring to Amit Kapoor in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Signature Not Verified SAN UP, the Supreme Court held that for framing charge under Section 228 Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such Date: 2023.02.23 13:12:09 IST 4 charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence."
9. What is required to be seen for framing of charges is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The above proposition is supported with law laid down in the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 4; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, Kamlendra Bahadur Mishra v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine All 503; and Shakiluddin v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 52.
10. In the instant case, there is prima facie evidence available in charge sheet to frame charges against the applicant under Sections 407/120-B, 409/120- B, 420/120-B & 411 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal principles set out by the Supreme Court, I do not find any ground to make interference in the impugned order of framing of charge. The defence of the applicant cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the preceding analysis, this revision is dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2023.02.23 13:12:09 IST