MUNNALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition preferred against the order Dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No.03/ 05, whereby the Charges under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been framed against the petitioner and an application preferred under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code for calling the additional documents/ records has been rejected without examining the necessity of summoning of the record for framing of the Charge.

(2.) The Economical Offences Bureau Office of the State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted a Charge sheet against as many as 13 persons in relation to misappropriation of funds of Prathmik Bunkar Sahakari Samiti Noorabad and Prathmik Bunkar Sahakari Samiti, Dattehara, Morena, where petitioner Munnalal was described to be the President of one of the Society during years 1990-93, when on account of misappropriation of funds and non-utilization of the fund, certain offences were found to be committed by the Petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the accused persons, namely, Yadunath Singh Tomar, Deen Dayal and Munnalal and a specific prayer was made on behalf of Petitioner Munnalal that since the Society is not functioning at the prescribed place and there exists an official order authorizing its shifting from the prescribed place to the changed place and the entire amount entrusted to the Society was properly utilized and a Utilization Certificate was issued and the balance of the amount was deposited, whereafter no offence could have possibly been made out and since the summoning of these documents would be necessary for the just decision of the case, a prayer for calling the record was made before the Court below, but the same was rejected on the ground that as per the general direction given by the High Court, the cases pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act were required to be disposed of by the end of the year. The application was cursorily rejected and the Charges were framed against the petitioner contrary to the documentary evidence.