Murlidhar Agarwal vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(MP) 160

2011 (3) JLJ 152
R.C. Mishra and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.
Murlidhar Agarwal
Versus
State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No. 1276, 1277, 1283, 1297, 1366, 1371 and 1408 of 2010 : against the judgment of Special Judge, passed in Special Case No.17 of 1998 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 22.2.2011.

Advocates Appeared:
R.K. Nanhorya. Kunal Dubey, V.K. Shrivastava, A.K. Mishra, Rajendra Pandey and S.K. Shrivastava for appellants;
Umesh Pandey, Govemment Advocate for respondent-State.

Headnote:Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (M.P.) -- Ss.6, 41, 42 and 43 -- trial of accused persons under Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge -- Sessions Judge only acted as Special Judge n designation of Sessions Court as Special Court does not denude it of its powers as Sessions Court -- all accused were acquitted from all offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and Penal Code -- instead, convicted and sentenced under the Adhiniyam of M.P. for preparing fictitious muster rolls n under this Adhiniyam, cognizance can be taken by Sessions Court only after committal of the case by Judicial Magistrate to Sessions Court -- whereas, in this case, Sessions Court itself took cognizance while aforesaid committal was mandatory n hence, aforesaid convictions not sustainable in law -- all accused were acquitted from offence.
       Held: After considering the matter in its entirety, our composite answer to the questions as formulated and mentioned in paragraphs No.11 and 21 (above) is that had the case been committed to the Special Court by a Magistrate, the impugned convictions could have been recorded even in absence of direction of the prescribed authority for investigation and sanction of the competent authority for their prosecution for the offence under the Adhiniyam. In other words, the convictions are not sustainable in law and deserve to be set aside as nullity in view of the fact that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the Adhiniyam. AIR 1975 SC 915, (1984)2 SCC 500 and AIR 2004 SC 536 followed. AIR 2007 SC 2618, AIR 1955 SC 196, AIR 1936 PC 253(2), AIR 1953 SC 293 and AIR 2004 SC 730 referred to. 1984 JLJ 324 and 1989(1) MPWN 41 distinguished. [Para 35
       fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 6] 41] 42 rFkk 43 && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk fopkj.k && ls‘ku U;k;ky; ds fo‘ks"k U;k;ky; ds :i esa inkfHk/kku ls ls‘ku U;k;ky; ds :i esa bldh ‘kfDr;k¡ fujko`r ugha gksrh gSa && lHkh vfHk;qDr Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e rFkk naM lafgrk ds v/khu lHkh vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr && blds ctk,] mUgsa dfYir eLVj jksYl rS;kj djus ds fy, e-iz- ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fl)nks"k Bgjkdj naMkfn"V fd;k x;k && bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu] ,slk laKku U;kf;d eftLVªsV }kjk ls‘ku U;k;ky; dks ekeyk lqiqnZ djus ds i‘pkr~ gh ls‘ku U;k;ky; }kjk gh fy;k tk ldrk gS && tcfd] izLrqr ekeys esa ls‘ku U;k;ky; us Loa; laKku fy;k tcfd iwokZDr lqiqnZxh vkKkid Fkh && blfy,] iwoksZDr nks"kflf);k¡ fof/k ds vuqlkj ekU; ugha && lHkh vfHk;qDr vijk/k ls nks"keqDrA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekeys dh lexzrk esa bl ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~] iSjk dzekad 11 rFkk 21 ¼Åij½ esa fofufeZr rFkk mfYyf[kr iz‘uksa dk gekjk la;qDr mRrj ;g gS fd ;fn ekeyk eftLVªsV }kjk fo‘ks"k U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k gksrk] vUos"k.k ds fy, fofgr izkf/kdkjh ds funs‘k rFkk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, muds vfHk;kstu ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh eatwjh ds vHkko esa Hkh vkf{kIr nks"kflf);k¡ vfHkfyf[kr dh tk ldrh FkhA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] nks"kflf);k¡ fof/k ds vuqlkj ekU; ugha gS rFkk bl rF; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k dks vijk/k dk laKku ysus dh dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk ugha Fkh] vd`rrk ds :i esa vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 915] ¼1984½2 ,l lh lh 500 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 536 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 2618] , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 293 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 730 fufnZ"VA 1984 ts ,y ts 324 rFkk 1989¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 41 izHksfnrA

       ¼iSjk 35½

JUDGMENT

Mishra, J. -- 1. These appeals are interlinked, as preferred against a common judgment passed on 7.7.2010 by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for Lokayukt cases) (for short' the Act") at Jabalpur in Special Case No.17/1998 whereby each one of the appellants, though charged with the offences punishable under sections 409,420,468,471, 477A, 120B of IPC and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, was convicted under section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam") and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in default, to suffer imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The proceedings against co-accused Satyanarayan Rai, the then Divisional Accountant, Rajendra Acharya, the then Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division Jabalpur, Ninnal Krishnadeo, the then Sub-Engineer, SubDivision Sagona and Rajendra Kumar Agwale, the then Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division Mehgaon Tola, have abated consequent to their respective deaths.

3. At the relevant point of time, the appellants who, shall be referred to by their respective names only, were working in the following official capacities in the Hiran Water Resources Department, Division Jabalpur.

(i) Brijmohan Kapoor Executive Engineer, Hiran Water Resources Division, Jabalpur

(ii) Satyanarayan Shankhere Sub-Engineer, Sub Division, Jabalpur

(iii) Murlidhar Agrawal Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Jabalpur

(iv) Dinesh Narayan Dubey Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Jabalpur

(v) Ramesh Singh Gupta Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division, Sagona

(vi) Ramesh Kumar Rawat Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Sagona

(vii) Ashok Kumar Pandey Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Sagona

(viii) Abdul Rashid Khan Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Mehgaon Tola

(ix) Sanat Kumar Pathak Sub-Engineer, Sub-Division, Mehgaon Tola

(x) Narendra Kumar Dhimole Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division No.3, Jabalpur

(xi) Pavan Kumar Sadhu Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division No.3, Jabalpur

It is contextual to note that the term "man-day" means an industrial unit of production equal to the work one person can produce in a day.

4. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus -(a) While working in the aforesaid official capacities in the Hiran Water Resource Division, during the period from October 1991 to December 1991, the appellants entered into a conspiracy to defraud the State Government by preparing false and fictitious muster rolls purporting to be the record of the man power employed on daily wage basis for repairs to certain irrigation works including Jungle clearance and in pursuance of the conspiracy, as many as 307 such muster rolls were prepared by 34 Sub-Engineers including the Sub-Engineers named above. .

(b) It was upon a complaint (Ex.P-97) made by Mohit Lal Singh, the then President of Pichhda Warg Samaj Party that an enquiry was conducted into the matter by G.K. Shukla (PW43), posted as Inspector in the Jabalpur Office of Economic Offences Investigation Bureau into the matter. After due enquiry, he submitted a report (Ex.P-98) indicating that a total amount of Rs.11 ,69,303.20 was incurred as expenditure by as many as 34 Sub-Engineers on 440724.50 man-days as against sanction of only 140278 man-days by the Superintending Engineer necessitating an expenditure of Rs.3,66,086/- and thus, a total wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.8,03,217 .90 was caused to the State Exchequer. In the light of the findings of preliminary enquiry, H.C. Soni (PW37), the then Inspector, Economic Offence Bureau, registered a case in respect of the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)(i)-(ii)-(iii) of the Act and 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,477 A and 120B of the IPC by recording the FIR (Ex.P-89). Its investigation revealed:

(i) B.M. Kapor, the Executive Engineer, without prior permission/sanction, approved man-days in excess of the man-days already sanctioned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2011 Supreme(MP) 160

2011 (3) JLJ 152 R.C. Mishra and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.Murlidhar Agarwal Versus State of M.P.Criminal Appeals No. 1276, 1277, 1283, 1297, 1366, 1371 and 1408 of 2010 : against the judgment of Special Judge, passed in Special Case No.17 of 1998 (Jabalpur); Decided on 22.2.2011.

Cases Referred (11)

Judicial Analysis

2011 (3) JLJ 152
R.C. Mishra and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.
Murlidhar Agarwal
Versus
State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No. 1276, 1277, 1283, 1297, 1366, 1371 and 1408 of 2010 : against the judgment of Special Judge, passed in Special Case No.17 of 1998 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 22.2.2011.