MUKESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner invoked the extra territorial jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by order dated 26/03/2012 passed by Ist Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Cr.R. No. 100/11 arising out of the order dated 19/04/11 passed by JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No. 802/2004 whereby the charge under section 120-B of IPC has been framed against him.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that petitioner was posted as Audit Officer in the office of the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Service at Chhindwara and his duty was only to see the accounts in respect of bills and vouchers submitted before the Authority and compare the same with the balance sheets and accounts. He could not verify that how many employer, worker or labours shown in the muster roll have actually been employed or not. The main allegation against this petitioner is that during the audit he has not pointed out any irregularity in regard to purchase of cement and other material used in construction of Primary School and purchase of material in regard to Mid Day Meal Scheme. Bills of the repairing of hand pumps and payment made for the transportation of drinking water and other schemes launched by Government were carried out in Gram Panchayat, Haran Bhata therefore, he was involved in the conspiracy with the other co-accused persons. He was prosecuted alongwith other co-accused persons before the trial Magistrate, who framed the charge u/s 120-B of IPC against this petitioner. Being aggrieved, he preferred the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed by him vide order dated 26/03/2012 hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that there is no prima facie evidence against this petitioner in regard to the alleged offence u/s 120-B of IPC. It is further submitted that petitioner is a govt. servant therefore, cognizance could not be taken against him without filing the sanction to prosecute him u/s 197 of Cr.P.C by prosecuting agency thus, courts below committed the illegality by framing the aforesaid charge against this petitioner. In these circumstances, he prays for quashment of the order of framing of charge u/s 120-B of IPC against the petitioner.