RAJESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 397/401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dtd. 11/5/2018 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in S.T. No. 7/2017, whereby learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria framed the charges under Ss. 420 and 409 read with Sec. 511 of IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) Case of prosecution in brief is that CEO Janpad Panchayat Maanpur has filed a written complaint to Incharge Police Station Maanpur District Umariya stating that under the scheme of MANREGA, present petitioner- Secretary along with co-accused persons who were functioning as Sarpanch, Sub Engineer, Assistant Engineer have sanctioned the work of Med Bandhan in the field of Bhurelal Gond and Raja Gond, but in physical, the work was not done. The completion certificate of said work has been issued and bill has also been submitted for withdrawing of payment, therefore, it is alleged against the petitioner/accused and co-accused persons that they have cheated the State and tried to misuse of appropriate fund of Government. The allegation against the present petitioner is that being a Secretary he was made false spot verification with Sub Engineer and played a role to issue false completion certificate. On the basis of same, case was registered against the petitioner/accused and other coaccused. During the investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been filed before the trial Court. Thereafter, learned trial judge also framed the charge against the petitioner/accused under Ss. 420 and 409/511 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court wrongly framed the charges and not considered the proper aspects of the case. It is alleged that petitioner/accused, during the period of 23/12/2011 to 13/1/2012 without doing the work of the Made Bandhan in the scheme of the MANREGA in the field of the Bhurelal Gond, the MIS has been done and the work completion certificate has been issued, but the petitioner/accused has no any role in this work. The present petitioner/accused was working as a Panchayat Secretary, but as per the work of Gram Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam now the Gram Rojgar Sahayak is the incharge of the work of the MANREGA and the power of withdrawal the amount under the scheme of the MANREGA is holding by the Sarpanch and Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Said amount is directly deposited in the account of the labour, in that year the work completion certificate has been issued by the competent authority. There are no any role of the present petitioner/accused in the said work. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not considered this important aspects and mainly on the basis is that the present petitioner/accused was working as a Panchayat Secretary, he is involved in the said crime and charges has been framed. So the charges are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider this important aspects that the police has seized the entire documents of work of the Made Bandhan which is related to Bhurelal Gond and as per the charge sheet, the Gram Panchayat has passed the resolution, but in the said resolution there are no any signature of the present petitioner and other documents is issued by the Sub Engineer of the Janpad Panchayat, Manpur, thereafter the work completing certificate has been issued. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioner/accused has prepared any false documents or signed any papers which is said to be forged and fabricated under the MANREGA scheme. Further, muster roll has been prepared and the numbering has been done by the Gram Rozgar Sahayak of the Gram Panchayat and there after the said muster roll has been filled in the data of the MANREGA in the concerned Janpad Panchayat as per the work completing certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Assistant Engineer and Sub Engineer of the Janpad Panchayat, Manpur. So present petitioner/accused has not involved in the said crime, but the learned trial Court framed the charges against the present petitioner. Learned trial Court has not considered this important aspects that the inquiry report has been prepared by the CEO Janpad Panchayat, Manpur District Umariya and on the basis of the statements and the documents which are collected there is nothing on the record to show that the present petitioner/accused is involved in the said work. Learned trial Court has not considered this important aspects that the framing the charge under Sec. 409 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC that petitioner/accused did not issue any work of completing certificate, he did not prepare any plan for Made Bandhan, no signature is found in any document and nothing gain from the alleged act. Therefore, legal position of the case as per the charge sheet of the prosecution agency prima facie no case is made out against the present petitioner under Ss. 420, 409 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC. Present petitioner/accused has not cheated and not madee dishonesty as there are no any evidence against present petitioner/accused. So present petitioner/accused is falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 11/5/2018 and discharged the present petitioner/accused under Ss. 420, 409 read with Sec. 511 of IPC.