BRIJ BHOOSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-accused has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge of Additional Judge Link Court Sausar, District Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.300035/2016 whereby charge under sections 409 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. has been framed against the applicant/accused.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that at the relevant time applicant was posted as In-charge of Police Station Pandhurna and other co-accused R.P. Gaydhane was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the same Police Station. On 30.05.2016 some people were carrying 104 oxes for the purpose of slaughtering. The said oxes were rescued by the members of the Bajrang Dal and brought in the Police Station Pandhurna. On that day R.P. Gaydhane, Assistant Sub Inspector was In-charge of the Police Station as applicant was out of station in connection with investigation of other crime. Shri R.P. Gaydhane registered the complaint vide Crime No. 245/2014 for the offence under Sections 4, 6, 9 of M.P. Gau Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004, r/w Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 6, 10, 11 of M.P. Krishi Upyogi Sanrakshan Adhiniyam and the cattle were seized and medical examination was also conducted. Thereafter, the aforesaid cattle were taken to Gausala situated near about 25 Kilometers away from Pandhurna where Manager of the Gausala refused to receive the cattle as there was no place and other facility to manage the cattle. Thereafter, other Police Officers found two persons to handover the cattle for the purpose of security and grazing them and the cattle was handed over to them and took their signatures on Hifajatnama.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the basis that registration and investigation of the Crime No. 245/14 of Police Station Pandhurna was done by him. He was In-charge of the Police Station and at the relevant time, he was busy in the investigation of another crime. Other Investigating Officer was working under his supervision. But, so far as the allegations regarding breach of trust about the seized cattle on his direction or connivance or his knowledge is concerned, the same is true. Neither the cattle was entrusted to him nor he has illegally handed over them to anybody nor he has changed or sale the cattle as he was directly involved in the investigation of the aforesaid case and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the aforesaid irregularity, illegality was caused by his subordinate under his direction. Looking to the facts and circumstances the concerned Police Officer tried to manage the unprecedented situation because neither in the Police Station nor near about the Police Station, facility of keeping large number of cattle was available and In-charge of Gausala was also agreed to receive the cattle, therefore, temporary arrangements for the purpose of security and grazing the cattle were made to the interested persons who were agreed to take the responsibility of grazing of them. If, that persons have committed any fault then they were liable for the act as the act of the other Police Officers are also bona fide act. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that they have done any act deliberately, dishonestly with a view to commit breach of trust. Hence, the direction given by the JMFC cannot be said to be appropriate or legal and thereafter registration of the crime and filing of the charge-sheet and taking of the cognizance and imposition of the charge to prosecute further is illegal and contrary to law.