MOTILAL KESHARWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid three petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by order dated 21st January, 2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 175/03 and 176/03, whereby the order framing charge of commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal Case No.2400/01, has been affirmed.

(2.) The petitioner -Motilal Kesharwani at the relevant time was posted and working as Mandi Secretary; petitioner -Rudrapal Pandey as Mandi In-charge and petitioner -Gopal Prasad Bareth as the Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Janjgir. On 11.1.2001, premises of Shyam Agro Milling, Banari was raided and in the inquiry excess stock of paddy and rice was found in respect of which there were no entries made in the stock register. It is alleged that at that time, other accused- Leeladhar, Proprietor of Shaym Agro Milling Banari, failed to produce any valid document or authority for possession of excess quantity of paddy and rice. Later on, Leeladhar sought to produce certain receipt/sauda-patrak said to be issued from the concerned Mandi, in order to substantiate that the excess quantity of rice and paddy seized from his premises was duly purchased by him in transaction of purchase of rice and paddy from Mandi from various agricultural producer. When inquiry was made, it was found that sauda-patrak were forged and without there being any transaction of sale, valid documents were prepared and then handed-over to co-accused Leeladhar. Initially when the FIR was lodged, petitioner-Motilal was also named as accused along with Leeladhar, Rudrapal and Gokul Prasad. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, by police of Police Station- Janjgir, in which, Leeladhar, Murli Manohar, Gokul Prasad, Nageshwar, Gopal Prasa and Rudrapal Pandey were made accused. As petitioner- Motilal apprehended his arrest in view of he being named in the FIR, he had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court. Vide order dated 27.6.2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1283/01, his application was allowed. He furnished bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code, the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the matter and against each of the petitioners namely- Motilal, Rudrapal and Gopal, charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC were framed on the basis of material contained in the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, petitioners- Motilal and Rudrapal filed Criminal Revision No.176/03. Other petitioner -Gopal filed a separate petition registered as Criminal Revision No.175/03. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the learned revisional Court vide order dated 21st January, 2004 passed separately in Criminal Revision 175/03 and Criminal Revision No.176/03. These petitions arise out the order which has been passed by the revisional Court dismissing the revision and affirming the order framing charges by the Magistrate.

(3.) Assailing the correctness and validity of the order framing charge and the dismissal of revision petition, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases, submitted that no case of framing charge against petitioner- Motilal is made out. His submission is that when, during inquiry, premises were raided and allegedly forged sauda- patraks were seized, inquiry was made under the directions of the Collector by a Food Officer, in which, no material was revealed against the petitioner, which would even remotely involve the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. However, when the FIR was lodged, petitioner- Motilal was named therein, but after investigation, while filing charge sheet, petitioner -Motilal was not charge-sheeted, because in the investigation, it was found that the petitioner Motilal was not involved in the criminal act of preparation of forged sauda-patrak and causing wrongful gain to Leeladhar and wrongful loss to the Mandi. Even then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without due application of mind, merely because he was named in the FIR, charges have been framed, which is not supported by any material whatsoever and against specific report of the investigating officer that Motilal is only responsible for failure to exercise proper control and supervision over subordinate staff. He further submits that if the police has not charge sheeted petitioner Motilal, no cognizance could be taken against Motilal by the Court, much less framing of charges for alleged commission of offence. It has been submitted that the mode and manner of taking cognizance has been prescribed under Section 190 of the Code and except in the manner prescribed therein, no cognizance of commission of offence by Motilal could be taken. Further submission is that in the entire charge sheet, there is no material to warrant framing of charges. It is submitted that in the inquiry made by the Food Inspector-D.K, Pasine, documents relating to which have been made part of the case diary statements, all that is reflected is that the Inspectors, namely Gogul and Nageshwar had prepared forged sauda-patrak in favour of accused-Leeladhar. He further submits that there is no material to indicate any involvement of Motilal even with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC as there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that Motilal has also involved in the alleged conspiracy of preparing forged sauda-patrak without there being any transaction of sale and purchase of paddy and rice during relevant time in the Mandi.