Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 1017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Bantu Rohra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC No. 12644 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Mr. Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Aditya Narayan Gupta, Government Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of thorough investigation and the potential defrauding of public money in cases involving fraudulent transactions.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Fraudulent Paddy Transaction - Indian Penal Code 407, 409, 420
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending arrest for alleged offences under Sections 407, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, a miller, was accused of being involved in a fraudulent paddy transaction with government officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in a fraudulent paddy transaction, where no physical transaction took place despite documentation, indicated a scam defrauding public money. The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail and directed the Director General of Police to hand over the investigation to a special agency or responsible officer.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged fraudulent paddy transaction, the applicant's role as a miller, and the involvement of government officers in defrauding public money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of physical evidence of the paddy transaction, the discrepancy between documentation and actual possession, and the potential defrauding of public money. The court also emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to identify the actual culprits involved in the scam.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was rejected, and the Director General of Police was directed to hand over the investigation to a special agency or responsible officer.
ORDER
1. Mr. Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
2. Mr. Aditya Narayan Gupta, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
3. In compliance of orders passed by this Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, Insepector, Mr. Naveen Namdeo, Sub Inspector and Mr. Ramkishore Baiga, Junior Assistant, are present.
4. Heard.
5. This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.62/2022 registered at Police Station Madhavnagar, District Katni, for the offence punishable under Sections 407, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant has not played any role in the matter whereas the said crime has actually been committed by the officers of the State. He further submits that the officers of the State have neither purchased the paddy from the farmers nor handed over the same to the applicant who is a miller and running his rice mill. He submits that as per the agreement and contract between the applicant with the State Authorities and also with the Civil Supply Corporation, if any paddy is purchased then that would be delivered to the miller, who after its milling, convert the same into rice and transport it to the Civil Supply Corporation, but according to him, in the present case, since no delivery has been made to the applicant, therefore, no question for showing the stock of delivered paddy to the Team inspected the rice mill of the applicant arises. He also submits that as per the record available with the Manager of Uparjan Kendra (Production Center) where the purchase of paddy has been made, it is fraudulently shown that the paddy has been delivered to the applicant who is the proprietor of a rice mill, but the situation is otherwise. He submits that if any document with regard to delivery of the paddy is collected by the prosecution to make the applicant as an accused, the same is forged and cannot be relied upon. He submits that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs.2.5 crore towards advance or security with the respondent/Authority and if at all any loss in lieu of paddy delivered to the applicant is caused to the State, then the said amount can be adjusted out of the amount deposited by the applicant towards the security amount. On these submissions, he prays that the applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that looking to the nature of offence the applicant is not entitled to get any protection of anticipatory bail.
9. In the present case, the Investigating Team and one of the officers of Civil Supply Corporation have been called along with the complete record of case to assist the Court and make it understand as to what fraud has actually been committed, but during the course of arguments, it is found that the Investigating Officers are not able to demonstrate as to what fraud has actually been committed by the accused persons in the alleged crime. Not only this, it has also been observed by this Court that the Investigating Officer has not made investigation in the right direction or not inclined to reach into the root of the matter so as to find the actual culprits. Although, they have shown some documents i.e. delivery note whereby out of agreed quantity of paddy, some part of paddy was delivered to the applicant and also a document i.e. delivery note which was signed by the applicant himself. However, as per the documents available on record, it reveals that at the time of inspection, the paddy was neither found in the premises of the mill nor in the possession of the applicant. As per the prevailing system of Uparjan Kendra (Production Center) of the Government, if paddy is purchased on Government r
