RESHAMLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed by one of the co-accused in Sessions Trial No 89 of 1985, against the order dated 24th July, 1986, framing charge under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdist Bbrashta Aacharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh.

(2.) According to the prosecution, Sub Engineer R.R. Agrawal was in charge of the site KM. 42/2 to 42/6 Raigarh-Sarangarh Road for repair works. The Executive Engineer, S.P. Mishra made a written report dated 26-5-1983 to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh (Annexure 1) to the effect that some. Bitumen in drums have been stolen from the aforesaid work-site of the Public Works Department, Sarangarh Division, that is, from K.M. 42/2 to 42/6 in recent past and, there fore, he made a request to investigate info the matter. It was stated in the report that according to the Chowkidars posted at the site, 2 trucks of Bitumen drums were shifted elsewhere from the work site in the presence of Sub Engineer R.R. Agrawal-50 drums in the truck Dumber CPL 6353 belonging to the co-accused Om Prakash Sharma on 11-5-1983 at about 10-11 p.m. and 50 drums in truck Dumber ZRM 1075 in the intervening night of 16th and 17th May, 1983. In a letter (Annexure II) dated 28-5-1983, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer stated that on stock verification of stores he found 25.5 drums of Bitumen in excess for which he was told by the Store-keeper that excess was due to non-shifting of Maxphalt already indented by the Sub-Engineer. On the aforesaid report, the police investigated into the matter and presented the charge-sheet before the trial court against several persons including the applicant who was Store-keeper at the relevant time. It has been alleged against the applicant that he as a Storekeeper is also liable for prosecution under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Judge after considering the notice report and the document sent to the Court, under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing the counsel for the accused persons by the impugned order, framed charge against the applicant under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against which this revision has been directed for setting aside the impugned order and to quash the proceedings against him.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the learned trial Judge framed the charge against the applicant under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code without applying his mind to the material on record. He submitted that there is no material on record against the applicant attributing any criminal act on his part by reason of which it may be said that there is prima fade case against the applicant so all to justify the framing of the charge against him. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the challan papers produced before me by the learned counsel for the applicant, I find that there is great force in his submission.