Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Ashok Kumar Verma - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 07 of 2012
Decided On : 21-06-2017
For the Applicant : Shri Brijesh Sharma
For the Respondent: Shri Prakhar Dhengula
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 397, 401 OF CR. PC - AGAINST ORDER FRAMING CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 420 (ON 2 COUNTS), 409, 467, 468 AND 471 OF IPC - APPLICANT WAS SUPERINTENDENT, ITI, MORENA - COMPLAINT WAS MADE BY SDM, MORENA THAT APPLICANT HAD COMMITTED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES AND HAD CAUSED FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE STATE - APPLICANT WAS PLACED UNDER SUSPENSION AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED - APPLICANT WAS FOUND GUILTY FOR SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND WAS PUNISHED WITH STOPPAGE OF INCREMENTS WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT - APPLICANT CONTENDED THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE OUT OF MALA FIDES BEING POLITICAL IN NATURE AND SINCE HE HAS BEEN FOUND PARTIALLY GUILTY FOR SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE PRESENT CRIMINAL CASE, THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICANT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY - HELD, THAT THE MALA FIDES OF THE INFORMANT ARE OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE IF THE MATERIAL CONCLUDED AGAINST THE PERSON PRIMA FACIE MAKES OUT AN OFFENCE - EXONERATION IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY IS OF NO CONSEQUENCES SO FAR AS THE PROSECUTION OF THE DELINQUENT OFFICER FOR OFFENCES IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS CONCERNED - SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197 OF CR. PC WAS NOT REQUIRED AS THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE NO REASONABLE NEXUS WITH DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY - REVISION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
A written complaint was made by SDM, Morena on 08/12/2007 alleging that the applicant, while working on the post of Superintendent, ITI, Morena, had committed serious financial irregularities and had caused financial loss to the State. It was alleged that while the applicant was working on the post of Superintendent, ITI Morena, in utter violation of the order of the superior authorities, he had illegally appointed Shri Jitendra Kadam on the post of Sweeper and had made payment of Rs. 6969/- as well as the applicant had also cleared the bill of travelling outside the State, contrary to the rules. It was further alleged that although the applicant was not residing at the headquarter but still he received the HRA from the State. Further, it was claimed by the applicant that he had given the computer training to the trainees belonging to Scheduled Tribes and had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 18,900/- which was to be paid to the trainees but no computer training to the members of Scheduled Tribes was given. It was further alleged that it was claimed by the applicant that 40 wooden logs were purchased for the ITI and an amount of Rs. 13,000/- was paid but in fact the logs were never received in the institution as well as irregular payment was made by the applicant during the shifting of ITI. The police, after receiving the written complaint from the SDM, Morena, registered offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The Trial Court, by order dated 22/09/2011, framed charges as mentioned above.
Finding of the Court:
The mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance if the material concluded against the person prima facie makes out an offence. Exoneration in departmental enquiry is of no consequences so far as the prosecution of the delinquent officer for offences in a criminal trial is concerned. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr. PC was not required as the allegations have no reasonable nexus with discharge of his duty.
Issues: Whether the complaint was made out of mala fides being political in nature. Whether the prosecution of the applicant would amount to double jeopardy. Whether sanction under Section 197 of Cr. PC was required.
Ratio Decidendi: The mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance if the material concluded against the person prima facie makes out an offence. Exoneration in departmental enquiry is of no consequences so far as the prosecution of the delinquent officer for offences in a criminal trial is concerned. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr. PC was not required as the allegations have no reasonable nexus with discharge of his duty.
Final Decision: Revision dismissed.
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
This Criminal Revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr. PC has been filed against the order dated 22/09/2011 passed by IVth ASJ, Morena in ST No. 376/2010 by which the Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 420 (on 2 counts), 409, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a written complaint was made by SDM, Morena on 08/12/2007 alleging that the applicant, while working on the post of Superintendent, ITI, Morena, had committed serious financial irregularities and had caused financial loss to the State. It was alleged that while the applicant was working on the post of Superintendent, ITI Morena, in utter violation of the order of the superior authorities, he had illegally appointed Shri Jitendra Kadam on the post of Sweeper and had made payment of Rs. 6969/- as well as the applicant had also cleared the bill of travelling outside the State, contrary to the rules. It was further alleged that although the applicant was not residing at the headquarter but still he received the HRA from the State. Further, it was claimed by the applicant that he had given the computer training to the trainees belonging to Scheduled Tribes and had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 18,900/- which was to be paid to the trainees but no computer training to the members of Scheduled Tribes was given. It was further alleged that it was claimed by the applicant that 40 wooden logs were purchased for the ITI and an amount of Rs. 13,000/- was paid but in fact the logs were never received in the institution as well as irregular payment was made by the applicant during the shifting of ITI. The police, after receiving the written complaint from the SDM, Morena, registered offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court, by order dated 22/09/2011, framed charges as mentioned above.
4. Being aggrieved by the order framing charges, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that from 07/10/2006 to 03/10/2007, the applicant was posted as In-charge Superintendent of ITI, Morena and on 31/08/2007 a complaint was made by one Nagendra Tiwari, District President, Bhartiya Janta Party, Morena making several allegations against the applicant. By order dated 01/10/2007, the applicant was placed under suspension and the information of the said suspension order was given by the Collector to the Member of Parliament, Morena Constituency by his letter dated 04/08/2007 in which the reference of letter dated 30/09/2007, written by the Member of Parliament, Morena Constituency, was made. Thus, it is submitted that it is clear that after receiving a letter from the Member of Parliament, Morena Constituency on 30/09/2007, the applicant was placed under suspension by order dated 01/10/2007. It is further submitted that subsequently the suspension order was revoked and a departmental enquiry was conducted and in the departmental enquiry total 12 charges including the allegations in the present case were framed and in the enquiry, some of the charges were found proved and, accordingly, the Collector, by order dated 06/10/2002, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments without cumulative effect. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that as the allegations were made by the Member of Parliament, therefore, the allegations made against the applicant are malicious being political in nature. Further it is submitted that once the applicant has been found partially guilty for some of the allegations made in the present criminal case, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant would amount to double jeopardy and, ever otherwise, as the applicant is a public servant, therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr. PC for his prosecution is essential. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 22/09/2011 passed by IVth ASJ, Mo
