HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Honble Mr. Justice Narain Singh Azad
VIVEK KATHAL
Versus
DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT CBI
Decided On : Mar 25,2003
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- proceeding for quashing the proceedings -- Court is not required to examine defence in detail -- Court has to examine whether complaint and documents filed disclose any offence. 1999 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 141 (SC) followed. [Para 6]
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- case under inherent powers -- Court cannot record any evidence -- nor photocopy being inadmissible in evidence can be admitted. 1999 (1) MPJR SN 40 relied on. [Para 6]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 420, 468 and 471 -- bogus entries in books of accounts and other documents made to earn profits dishonestly -- fraud played and department also cheated -- offences prima facie made out -- proceedings cannot be quashed under inherent powers of High Court. [Para 7]
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 482 -- ground of joint prosecution not mentioned in petition nor before Court below -- cannot be allowed to be urged. [Para 8]
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk]1973 && /kkjk 482 && Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 420] 468 rFkk 471 ds v/khu vijk/k&& vfHk;kstu] izkjafHkd izdze ij vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus dh bZIlk && U;k;ky; }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gksxk fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:) fd, x, vfHkdFkuksa ls vijk/k izFken`"V~;k fl) gksrk gS ;k ughaA 1988 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 225 ¼mPpre U;k-½] 1992 ¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 141 ¼mPpre U;k-½] rFkk ¼2000½3 ,l lh lh 269 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5½ ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus dh dk;Zokgh && vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus dh dk;Zokgh && U;k;ky; }kjk izfrj{kk dk foLr`r ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gS && U;k;ky; }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd ifjokn vkSj Qkby fd, x, nLrkostksa ls D;k dksbZ vijk/k izdV gksrk gSA1992 ¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 141 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6½ ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482&& varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa ds v/khu ekeyk && U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ lk{; vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && u QksVksizfr gh] lk{; esa vxzká gksus ds dkj.k] xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA 1999¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj ,l ,u 40 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6½ ¼4½ naM lafgrk]1860 && /kkjk 420] 468 rFkk 471 && csbZekuh ls ykHk vftZr djus ds fy, ys[kk&cfgksa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa esa feF;k izfof"V;k¡ && Nylk/ku fd;k x;k vkSj foHkkx ls Hkh izoapuk dh xbZ && vijk/k izFken`"V~;k fl) && mPp U;k;ky; dh varfufgZr ‘kfDr;ksa ds v/khu dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 7½ ¼5½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && la;qDr vfHk;kstu dk vk/kkj u ;kfpdk esa vkSj fupys U;k;ky; ds le{k gh mfYyf[kr && vuqjks/k fd;k tkuk vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 8½
( 1. ) THIS common order shall dispose of M. Cr. C. No. 464/2003, filed on behalf of Vivek Kathal, Bhagat Ram Agrawal, Subhash Chand Bansal and basant Kumar Jain, M. Cr. C. No. 1438/2003, filed on behalf of Pradeep Kumar mittal and Manish Kumar Jain, so also M. Cr. C. No. 2010/2003, filed on behalf of Umesh Bahadur Singh, against the common respondent, seeking the relief of quashment of order of taking cognizance of offences against them, in criminal Case No. 2/2001, pending in the Court of Special Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur, and the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, which pertains to offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of the IPC in exercise of inherent powers.
( 2. ) THIS is not being disputed that during the year 1999, Vivek kathal was functioning as Partner of Anjum Fuels, Bhagatram Agrawal was functioning as Managing Partner of Ma Sharda Coal Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , Umesh Bahadur Singh was functioning as Proprietor of M/s. Gaurav fuels, Subhash Bansal was functioning as Director of M/s. Vandana Fuels Pvt. Ltd. , Pradeep Kumar Mittal was functioning as Partner of M/s. Sanjay Fuels, manish Kumar Jain was functioning as Proprietor of M/s. Appollo Coal briquetter and Basant Kumar Jain was functioning as Managing Director of m/s. Pawan Wires Pvt. Ltd. All these Units were registered with District industries Centre, Panna, and were having coal linkages from Coal India Ltd. Ma Sharda Coal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. , so also M/s. Pawan Wires pvt. Ltd. , were registered for manufacturing Special Smokeless Fuel (S. S. F,)and rest of the Units were registered for manufacturing Coal Briquettes.
( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, during the year 1999, the above 7 units lifted the coal from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , (SECL), as per recommendations of D. I. C. Panna, and linkage of Coal India Ltd. , but did not use the coal so received for manufacturing of briquettes and SSF but sold it in black market and accordingly made bogus entries in their books for showing the utilisation of the coal received, for production of coal briquettes and SSF bogus entries were in books of these Units, made for showing manufacture and sale of S. S. F. so also coal briquettes and thus petitioners are alleged to have cheated both the Coal India Ltd. , and D. I. C. The photocopy of charge sheet is marked Annexure I, in M. Cr. C. No. 464/2003. ( 4. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as per FIR, criminal Case No. 2/2001, which stood registered as RC No. 17 (A)/99 cbi/jbr, on 25-10-99, and the photocopy of which is marked as Annexure p-2, initially, the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stood registered against AL bhattacharya, Officer Incharge, Burhar Railway Siding, Suhagpur Area, secl, Shahdol, Ajay Tyagi, Officer Incharge Amlai Railway Siding, Suhagpur area, SECL, Shahdol, Gopal Logun, Weigh-Bridge Clerk, S. E. Railway, burhar Railway Siding, SECL, Shahdol; and Farid-ul-Haq, Weigh Bridge clerk, SECL, Amlai Railway Siding, Shahdol, also along with all these seven petitioners but since the Railway authorities did not accord sanction of prosecution against all the aforesaid four Railway employees, who may be said to be the main accused, by way of scapegoat arrangements, these petitioners are being prosecuted. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the fact of sale of coal by any of these petitioners or to prove the fact that the coal is diverted for any other purpose the great stress is laid on this argument that in an inquiry conducted by general Manager, D. I. C, Panna, a finding is returned against the case of the prosecution. (Photocopy of this report is marked on pages 166, 167 and 168)and in another enquiry conducted by SDO Pavai, Distt. Panna, all the Units, except two, in respect of which information about closure had already been sent to D. I. C. Panna
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.