STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HAJARI LAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this revision against the common order dated 18-12-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna disposing of Criminal Revisions no. 78/1990,83/1990,84/1990 and 86/1990 whereby the Sessions Judge allowed the revisions and quashed the order dated 30-7-1990 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna, framing the charges against the accused persons under Sections 409, 418 and 418 read with Section 120-B of IPC In criminal Case No. 272 of 1988.

(2.) IN short the facts of the case are that on receipt of a complaint from the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa, on 13-4-1969, Police kotwali, Panna, registered Crime No. 38 of 1969. At the relevant time i. e. , in the financial year of 1968-69 accused Hajari Lal was the District Education Officer, panna, Ramashanker Rajput Store Keeper, Devi Prasad Yadav Accountant and chandrika Prasad Tiwari Upper Division Clerk in the office of District education Officer, Panna. Accused Ismail was Proprietor of M/s Buddh Ismail, ajaygarh, G. P. Shukla Proprietor of M/s Education Traders, Satna, Vijay kumar Shukla Proprietor of Vijay Education Corporation, Agra and gopikrishna Gupta was the Proprietor of M/s Gupta Stores, Rewa. On investigation it was found that Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa division, had allotted a sum of Rs. 27,500/- to the District Education Officer hajari Lal Bhatt for the purchase of maps and charts for the schools in the financial year 1968-69 whereas he had purchased the maps and charts of the value of Rs. 5,63,304. 80 paise and other articles of Rs. 28,898/- during that year. Hajari Lal had purchased the aforesaid articles from M/s Educational Traders, satna, to the tune of Rs. 1,26,557. 15 paise, from M/s Kunjbihari Rammanohar panna of Rs. 2,50,064. 90 paise, from M/s Vijay Educational Corporation, Agra, of Rs. 88,816. 90 paise, from M/s Gupta Stores, Rewa, of Rs. 57,440. 85 paise and from M/s Buddh Ismail, Ajaygarh, of Rs. 40,425/ -. District Education Officer was entitled to purchase urgently needed articles only up to value of Rs. 1,000/-under the rules provided in M. P. Financial Code. It is alleged that accused Hajari lal obtained the bills for the purchased articles by splitting them under the value of Rs. 1,000/- each with the connivance of the supplier firms and passed the bills for the payment. It is alleged that departmental registers and records were not properly maintained and there was shortage of stock. It is also alleged that the purchases were made without sanction, in contravention of the rules applicable to the department and more goods then ordered were obtained from the suppliers. No proper procedure was followed and the articles were purchased on higher price than their actual market value.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge, Panna, under Sections 409,420,477-A and 120-B of IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, on which Special Case No. 1 of 1976 was registered. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 7-8-1979 held that prima facie no offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was made out, however, there was a prima facie case under Section 418 read with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused Hajarilal, Devi Prasad and Chandrika Prasad and under Sections 409 and 418 read with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused ramashanker Rajput and under Sections 418 read with Section 109 of IPC in alternative read with Section 120-B of IPC against accused Ismail, G. P. Shukla, vijay Kumar Shukla and Gopikrishna. The learned Special Judge accordingly remitted the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna, for the trial. Aggrieved by the order of framing charges, accused persons preferred revisions before the High Court, which were disposed of by the common order passed on 4-4-1980 in Cr. Revision No. 494 of 1979, holding that the Special judge had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in framing the charges under the provisions of Penal Code and remitting the case to Magistrate for the trial. It was held that the proper course for the learned Special Judge was to return the challan papers to the Police concerned, who may be free to present the same under the relevant provisions of law before the Magistrate having jurisdiction.