ASHUTOSH MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2017 in S.T. No. 204/2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District-Betul whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent/State under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(2.) According to case, on 17.10.2013, a written complaint was made by Aditya Nagar, Additional Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Betul, to the P.S.-Betul stating therein that under "Mukhyamantri Sadak Yojna", a Gravel Road of 2.58 kms. was being constructed between Masoud-Dongarpur village. The construction work was commenced in the year 2010 in which certain irregularities were found, for which, an inquiry committee comprising of three members, namely, Ajay Kumar Saxena (Project Officer), Aditya Nagar, Addl. CEO (complainant) and Shishir Kushwaha (General Manager) was constituted which submitted the inquiry report dated 09.09.2013 to the competent authority. On the basis of such inquiry report, the Police StationBetul registered the FIR vide Crime No.796/13 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC against seven accused persons and after the investigation, challan has been filed before the learned Court of Sessions. Thereafter the trial Court has framed the charges against those seven accused persons. Prosecution produced the evidence of the witnesses during trial. After the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were also recorded by the trial Court and the case was fixed for defence evidence. Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for adding six other persons as accused in the present case including present petitioner-accused. It is mentioned in the application that in the inquiry report dated 09.09.2013, the-then Consultant, S.D.O. and Executive Engineer are responsible for alleged irregularities occurred in constructing the MasoudDongarpur road under the scheme of "Mukhyamantri Sadak Yojna". It is further mentioned in the application that in trial, the witnesses Ajay Kumar Saxena (PW-1), Aditya Nagar (PW-6), Shishir Kushwaha (PW-17) and M.S. Dhurvey (PW-10) have stated against the petitioner and other persons. The State has also drawn attention of the Court below towards Ex./P-17. Thereafter, the learned trial Court found sufficient ground to add and implead them as an accused, hence, the learned trial Judge allowed the said application and directed to include the name of present petitioner, as an accused in the said case along with other four persons.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent. He submits that the Court has overlooked the fact that there was no strong evidence against the petitioner. He further submits that during investigation, the police has recorded the statements of aforesaid witnesses but the police did not find anything against the petitioner, hence, no FIR was registered against the petitioner. Consequently, no new material has been produced before the Court which could indicate the involvement of the present petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. While arguing on the point of legal principle, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the power of Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C is discretionary and extraordinary in nature and before invoking the same, the trial Court should have assured itself that there is strong and cogent evidence available against the petitioner. He further submits that merely on the basis of the statements of the witnesses about the involvement of petitioner, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that in the case, the trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no role ascribed to the petitioner in alleged irregularities. He also submits that name of the present petitioner is not existing in the FIR and he was also not charge sheeted by the police, if prima facie any case was made out against the petitioner, the Court had to see the same while taking cognizance in the case but it is not done by the trial Court which shows that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner has also pleaded on the point of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid, he prays to allow this petition.