The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the ingredients of the offences under IPC Sections 418 and 465, the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER :

All these petitions are being decided by this common order as they are having a common dispute arising out of the order dated 17/02/2016 passed by revisional Court i.e. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Revision No.19/2012 whereby while affirming the order dated 01/10/2011 passed by the Court of JMFC, Katni in Complaint Case No.3558/2011 thereby the trial Court has registered the complaint against each applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 465 of IPC and directed the trial Court to registered the case against each applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC in addition to the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 465 of IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to all these cases, in short, are that complainant-Prem Kumar Burman, who is respondent herein, submitted a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC alleging therein that applicant-Ramesh Singh Baghel was posted as Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni, applicant-Gokul Khare was posted as Dy. Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni,, applicant-Sandeep Jaiswal was posted as Mayor, Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni, K.L. Pandey was posted as Revenue Officer, Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni, Shivdhar Badgaiya was posted as Revenue Inspector, Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni at the relevant point of time i.e. 2006 to 2007. Municipal Corporation, Katni is calling tender every year for Dainik Bazar Bethki. In the financial year of 2004-05 the tender was accepted for the value of Rs.8,13,212/-, for the year 2005-06 of Rs.13,05,000/-, for the year 2006-07 of Rs.16,10,000/-.

3. For the financial year 2007-08 Municipal Corporation again called tender from the various persons and set the basic value of Rs.17,71,000/-. After advertising in the newspaper, Municipal Corporation, Katni received only one sealed tender from Sanjay Sarawagi and the then Dy. Commissioner Gokul Khare on the basis of one single tender without calling further tenders from other persons forgedly opened one tender which was valued of Rs.12,50,000/-and did not refer the matter to the council of Municipal Corporation constituted of the elected members of wards and not called the members for the meeting. However, despite that, applicant-Shivdhar Badgaiya put a note dated 31/03/2007 that it had been decided in the meeting of the council of Municipal Corporation on 22/3/2007 that the tender should be allotted to Sanjay Sarawagi and on that note all the applicants without conducting meeting of the Council accepted the tender o Sanjay Sarawagi for the financial year 2007-08 and caused loss to the Corporation as the basic value was Rs.17,71,000/-. In the meantime, before accepting the tender, Municipal Corporation issued a receipt book to the employees of the Corporation for collecting money from the persons who took part in the Dainik Bazar Baithki. The complainant alleges therein that all the applicants conspired with each-other for providing the contract to Sanjay Sarawagi on a very low price which was very low in comparison to the contract issued for the previous year and caused loss to the Municipal Corporation and provided illegal financial benefit to Sanjay Sarawagi by allowing only one tender submitted by Sanjay Sarawagi.

4. Learned Court of JMFC after recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 01/10/2011 registered the complaint case under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 465 of IPC and issued notice against each applicants.

5. Each applicant preferred a revision against order dt. 01/10/2011 and complainant-Prem Kumar Burman also preferred revision against that order for not registering the complaint for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Learned revisional Court registered the revision as Criminal Revision No.19/2012 and disposed of the same vide order dated 17/02/2016 thereby dismissing the revision filed by all the applican