JAGDISH NARAYAN DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the then Up Ayukta Nagar Nigam, Gwalior Dr. Hari had directed him to encash the amount of cheque which stood in his name and then hand over the amount for distribution to the clerk-cum-cashier and according to this direction the amount was handed over to the clerk concerned. Annexures P-1 to P-3 have been enclosed to substantiate the argument.

(2.) HOWEVER it seems that these documents were not filed before the Trial Court so as to consider them if necessary at the stage of framing of charge.

(3.) NO doubt sometimes the prescribed rules are not followed practically to expedite any relief work and in that case the violation of rule becomes only a matter of departmental enquiry and not meant for prosecuting an authority who had acted bonafidely. The prosecuting agency in such a situation should see in facts and circumstances of each case as to what was the actual practical working in given case and then alone decide whether the prosecution of the authority concerned is justified. Otherwise it may sometimes amount to abuse of process of law. The Trial Court may also conduct or direct any police authority to make a summary enquiry if these documents are filed before it for arriving at a proper conclusion. However, the petition at this stage found premature as the prosecution has not afforded an opportunity to reply these documents.