Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Rane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath Kesharwani
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 27th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 856 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SATISH RANE S/O SHRI GOPAL RANE, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB- ENGINEER,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT KHANDWA, R/O
ADARSH NAGAR KHANDWA ROAD KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(MS. SUDHA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THR.PS. PANSEMAL, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
This revision coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
Applicant has filed present Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25.01.2019 whereby an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed
- : 2 :-
seeking discharge from the offences Section 420/34, 409/34, 467/34,468/34, 471/34, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 framed vide order dated 23.01.2018 The present applicant was posted as Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineer Services Division, Barwani under MNREGA scheme. A complaint was received in the year 2009 regarding poor quality of construction of some work constructed by the Rural Engineering Service Division during the incumbency of the applicant as Sub-Engineer. As per allegation construction of GSB road from Lalvaniya to Gendri, Sapakhadki to Lalvniya, Phata, Onekhad to Piplypani was involved and construction of Jamniya Nala Nistari Tank, Ambanala Saapkhadki, Perculation Tank Gram Panchayat Piprani, Jhula Nala Nistar Tank Gram panchayat Shivni Padava, Balghiri Perculation Tank, Pipliyapani Pani Perculation Tank, Bangra perculation Tank. The total amount paid for this construction was Rs.1,35,64,291/-. As per the measurement book, estimate was wrongly prepared and false entries were shown in the measurement book.
Investigation was carried out in the aforesaid matter by the respondent and charge sheet was submitted before the before jurisdictional Court under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the co-accused Rakesh Singh Rathore approached before this Court by way of Criminal Revision No.1512/2016 and Criminal
- : 3 :-
Revision No.1513/2016 under Section 397/401 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 27.08.2016 whereby the aforesaid charges were framed against him.
Vide order dated 26.09.2017, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the impugned order and discharged him from under Section 120-B, 409/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the State Government assailed the aforesaid order by way of a Special Leave Petition and the Apex Court has declined to grant the leave, hence, the order dated 26.09.2017 has attained finality. Thereafter relying on the aforesaid order, proceeding for Special Case No.13/2016 under the same charges relating to the same work has also been dropped against the petitioner therein.
It is further submitted that the charges against the petitioner and Rakesh Singh Rathore are the same as the common charge sheet was issued against all of them. Learned Special Judge has framed common charges against all the accused persons. There is no specific role attributable to each of them in the charges so framed. After perusal of the material available in the charges sheet and the manner in which the investigation was carried out, the Division Bench of this Court has discharged Rakesh Sing Rathore, hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief as no charges are made out against him.
Government Advocate was directed to examine whether the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Rakesh Singh Rathore. Shri Kamal Tiwari learned Government Advocate after
- : 4 :-
perusing the record and judgment passed, he is not in a position to demonstrate that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from Rakesh Singh Rathore as a common charge sheet was issued against them and charges are identical.
The order dated 26.9.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.1512/2016 and Criminal Revision No.1513/2016 under Section 397/401 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 whereby the aforesaid charges were framed against co-accused is binding precedent on us, hence we have no reasons to take a different view when the Government Advocate is not in a position to distinguish.
The Division Bench has also noticed that the Investigating Officer did not conducted any investigation in this matter. After registration of FIR, he has filed charge-sheet on the basis of report submitted by Five Members committee. The standard of enquiry of 5 members committee cannot be equated with the investigation by the police after registration of the FIR. The Investigation is liable to be carried out under the provision of CRPC by the Investigating Officer.
In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1974) 4 SCC 616 in which the Apex Court has held that a failure on the part of the concerned employees to perform their duties or to observe the rules of procedure laid down in the Duty Chart in a proper manner may be an administrative lapse on their part and may be at the highest a case of an error of judgment or breach of performance of duty which per se, cannot be equated with dishonest intention. Mens rea is one of the essential ingredients of offence of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C.
- : 5 :-
In case of Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar Vs.State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu reported in (1980) 3 SCC 110 the Apex Court has held that while considering the charges under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C and Section (5)(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, mere disregard of relevant provisions of General Financial Rules as well as ordinary norms of procedural behavior of government officials and contractors, in absence of a showing beyond reasons doubt about the guilt but would not constitute offences under the aforesaid provision.
Therefore, in view of the above, present petition is allowed the order dated 25.01.2019 and 23.01.2018 are set aside. The applicant is discharged from Section 120-B, 409/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen
Digitally signed by
PRAVEEN NAYAK
Date: 2022.10.01 02:43:12
-07'00'