Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
S. C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Jitendra Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.
Criminal Revisions No. 752, 765, 919, 974, 1201 and 3093
of 2017 (Indore); Decided on 2.1.2019
Ankur Mody for petitioners in CRRs No. 752/2017 and
3093/2017; R. K. Gondale for petitioner in CRR No. 765/2017; Ajay Bagadiya for petitioner in CRR No. 919/2017;
P. Mathur with M. S. Dwivedi for petitioner in CRR No. 974/2017; Nilesh Sharma for petitioner in CRR No. 1201/2017;
Govind Purohit for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss.227 and 228 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.120B, 420, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 409/34 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.13 (1) (d) r/w S.13(2) -- petitioners prepared false documents and submitted reports to facilitate payment of compensation to persons not entitled -- prosecution based on several documents seized during investigation and affidavits regarding period of posting of petitioners at relevant time and submission of documents showing their involvement -- prima facie, all this evidence is sufficient to frame charges -- no error, illegality or perversity in order of framing charge. (2000)6 SCC 338 = 2000 SCC (Cri.) 1110, (1977)2 SCC 699, (2008)12 SCC 531, (2010)2 SCC 398, (2012)3 SCC 614, LAWS (SC) 1978 11 25, (2005)1 SCC 568, MANU/SC/0111/2017, MANU/SC/1174/2014, MANU/SC/0071/2018 and MANU/SC/0025/2000 followed.
[Paras 14 & 34
(2) Criminal Trial -- Departmental Enquiry -- exoneration by department does not ipso facto bar criminal Court from exercising power in accordance with law -- criminal and departmental proceedings operate in different fields and have different objectives -- object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender -- purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules -- strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply to departmental proceedings -- in criminal law, burden of proof is on prosecution -- unless prosecution proves guilt of accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted -- in departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on finding recorded on basis of "preponderance of probability". (2012)9 SCC 685 followed. [Para 18
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 197, 397 and 401 -- challenge to validity of sanction for prosecution -- validity or constitutionality of any order or circular etc. cannot be challenged while exercising revisional jurisdiction -- sanction granted by administrative department following a circular which is not declared invalid - sanction cannot be considered invalid or without authority.
[Para 21
(4) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S.197 -- M. P. Government Business (Allocation) Rules -- Part I Rr. 7 and 13, Part II Cl. xxvi -- Government of M. P. competent to grant or refuse prosecution sanction -- it does not make any difference as to which department of Government dealt with the matter or accorded sanction -- no conflict in Business (Allocation) Rules or executive instruction issued by State Government -- only in case of conflict between both of them, Rules would prevail. AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 2093, AIR 2012 SC 858 followed. (2004)2 SCC 297 referred to. Writ Petition No. 18235/2015 and 16793/2015 decided on 21.6.2017, W. P. No. 8043/2014, 6917/2015, 6919/2015 and 7302/2015 decided on 28.7.2015 relied on. [Paras 25 to 27 & 33
(5) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S.197 -- stage of granting sanction -- meticulous or legalistic examination or analysis of evidence is not required -- all relevant material/evidence properly placed before sanctioning authority -- sanction itself very expressive or eloquent enough -- argument that sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, becomes unsustainable -- evident from order granting sanction that before granting sanction, authority examined material on record -- plea of non-application of mind not sustainable. [Paras 32 & 33
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 227 /kkjk 228 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 120[k] 420] 467@34] 468@34] 471@34 rFkk 409@34 && Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½ lgifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ && ;kphx.k us mu O;fä;ksa dks tks gdnkj ugha Fks] izfrdj dk lank; lqxe cukus ds fy, feF;k nLrkost rS;kj fd, rFkk fjiksVZ izLrqr dha && vUos"k.k ds nkSjku vfHkx`ghr vusd nLrkostksa ij rFkk lqlaxr le; ;kphx.k dh inLFkh dh vof/k ds ckjs esa 'kiFki=ksa vkSj mudk varoZyu n'kkZus okys nLrkostksa dh izLrqfr ij vfHk;kstu vk/kkfjr && izFken`"V~;k] ;g lc lk{; vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gS && vkjksi dh fojpuk ds vkns'k esa dksbZ xyrh voS/krk vFkok foi;ZLrrk ughaA ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 338 ¾ 2000 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 1110] ¼1977½2 ,l lh lh 699] ¼2008½12 ,l lh lh 531] ¼2010½2 ,l lh lh 398] ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 614] ykWt ¼,l lh ½ 1978 1125] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 568] euq@,llh@0111@2017] euq@,llh 1174@2014] euq@,llh@0071@2018 rFkk euq@,llh@ 0025@2000 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 34
¼2½ nakfMd fopkj.k &&foHkkxh tk¡p && foHkkx }kjk foeqfä ls nakfMd U;k;ky; fof/k ds vuqlkj 'kfä iz;qDr djus ls Lo;eso gh oftZr ugha gksrk && nkafMd vkSj foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;k¡ fHkUu {ks=ksa esa izofrZr gksrh gSa rFkk muds mís'; fHkUu gSa &&nkafMd fopkj.k dk mís'; vijk/kh ij leqfpr naM vf/kjksfir djuk gS &&tk¡p dk;Zokgh dk iz;kstu vipkjh ls foHkkxh; Lrj ij dkjZokbZ djuk vkSj lsok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djuk gS && foHkkxh; tk¡p esa lk{; vkSj izfØ;k ds dM+s fu;e ykxw ugha gksrs && nkafMd fof/k esa] lcwr dk Hkkj vfHk;kstui{k ij gS &&vfHkkstui{k vfHk;qä dk nks"k ß;qfä;qä lansg ds ijsÞ lkfcr ugha djs rc rd mls fl)nks"k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk && foHkkxh; tk¡p esa ßvf/klaHkkO;rk dh izcyrkÞ ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ ij 'kkfLr vfèkjksfir dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2012½9 ,l lh lh 685 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 197] 397 rFkk 401 && vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh dh fof/kekU;rk ij vk{ksi && iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qä djrs le; fdlh vkns'k ;k ifji= vkfn dh fof/kekU;rk vkSj lkafo/kkfudrk ij vk{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk && iz'kklfud foHkkx }kjk eatwjh ,sls ifji= ds vuqlj.k esa nh xbZ tks vfof/kekU; ?kksf"kr ugha && eatwjh vfof/kekU; vFkok izkf/kdkjjfgr ugha ekuh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 21
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 197 && e-iz- 'kklu dk;Z ¼vkcaVu½ fu;e && Hkkx 1 fu-7 rFkk 13] Hkkx 2 [kaM NCchl && e-iz- 'kklu vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh nsus vFkok bUdkj djus esa l{ke && blls QdZ ugha iM+rk fd 'kklu ds fdl foHkkx us bl fo"k; esa dkjZokbZ dh vFkok eatwjh nh && dk;Z ¼vkcaVu½ fu;e vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk tkjh dk;Zikfyd vuqns'kksa esa dksbZ fojks/k ugha && nksuksa esa fojks/k gksus dh n'kk esa gh fu;e vfHkHkkoh gksaxsA , vkb vkj 2015 ,l lh ¼lIyh-½ 2093 , vkb vkj 2012 ,l lh 585 vuqlfjrA ¼2004½2 ,l lh lh 297 fufnZ"VA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 18235@2015 rFkk 16793@2015 fu.khZr fnukad 21-6-2017] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 8043@2014] 6917@2015] 6919@2015 rFkk 7302@2015 fu.khZr fnukad 28-7-2015 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 25 ls 27 ,oa 33
¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 197 && eatwjh nsus dk izØe && lk{; dh vfrlko/kku vFkok fof/klEer ijh{kk ;k fo'ys"k.k visf{kr ugha && leLr lqlaxr lkexzh@lk{; eatwjh nsus okys izkf/kdkjh ds le{k mfpr :i ls izLrqr && Lo;a eatwjh cgqr vfHkO;ä vFkok i;kZIrr% lqO;ä && rdZ fd eatwjh nsus okys izkf/kdkjh us euksfu;ksx ugha fd;k] viks"k.kh; gks tkrk gS] eatwjh nsus ds vkns'k ls lqO;ä fd eatwjh nsus ds iwoZ] izkf/kdkjh us vfHkys[kxr lkexzh dks ij[kk && xSj&euksfuksx dk vfHkokd~ iks"k.kh; ughaA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 33
Singh J. -- 1. All these petitions have arisen out of the same order of framing charges against the petitioners, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. Grievance of the petitioners is that without any basis, without any evidence whether documentary or otherwise, without any application of mind and without appreciating the evidence and in a very casual manner the learned trial Court has framed charges under section 120-B, 420, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34, 409/34 of the IPC and section 13(1)(D) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “The Act of 1988”) vide order dated 23.3.2017 against them. This order is under challenge in all five petitions.
3. Undisputed facts of the case are that for the area likely to submerge in the Sardar Sarover Dam, the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) deployed several officers to carry out the work of survey, assessment, valuation, determination of compensation and other subsequent/consequential works necessary for acquisition of the land, plots, houses etc. Several divisions and sub-divisions were constituted to carry out the work. Villages Mandwara and Chichli were under Sub-division No. 7 of Division No. 3.
4. Allegation against the petitioners is that they all together hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, carried out misleading and erroneous survey of back water level of Sardar Sarover Dam, brought 13 houses of village Mandawa and 1 house of village Chichli in expected submergence area while actually they were not falling under that area, did valuation of those houses, fabricated falls documents, prepared sham proposals, caused publication of notice under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, forwarded it to the Collector and ensured the payment of compensation to the persons not entitled for the same and thus, caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 59,86,393/- to the State Exchequer.
5. Petitioner Ajay Rishi (CRR 765/17) was In-charge Executive Engineer, Pramil Kumar Yadav (Cr.R No. 919/2017) was Executive Engineer, Ashok Kumar Gupta (CRR No. 974/2017) and Jai Narayan Taur (CRR No. 1201/2017) were Sub Divisional Officers (SDO) and Jitendra Kumar Jain (CRR 752/17) and Baburao Lokhande (CRR 765/17) were Sub Engineers posted at Rehabilitation Division No. 3, District Badwani, Madhya Pradesh.
6. Broadly, common grounds taken by all the petitioners to challenge the impugned order are that the entire proceeding of showing those 14 houses under submergence area is based on the survey and notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 carried out by the officials posted at Sub-Division No. 7, while none of them was posted at this Division/Sub-Division at that time and they only followed the norms as prescribed by their predecessors, a departmental inquiry was initiated against them for the same charge but all of them are exonerated and for the same charges criminal proceedings cannot be initiated and lastly prosecution sanction to prosecute them is granted by an incompetent authority, therefore, their prosecution cannot be permitted to continue as it is sheer abuse of process of law.
7. It is the ground of Sub engineer Jitendra Kumar Jain that he was posted at Sub-Division No. 8 (from 15.7.2002 till 30.4.2003 Annxure P-7) at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894. Survey of the properties which were likely to come under submergence was conducted by Sub Division No. 7. After the survey, acquisition of the properties in the village Mandwara and Chichli coming under submergence was recommended to the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) vide letter dated 30.8.2002 and 6.9.2002 (Annexure P-2 and 3). Based on the aforesaid recommendation the Collector Badwani published gazette notification dated 13.9.2002 under section 4 of the Act, 1894. He was only asked to prepare proposal for notification under section 6 of the Act, 1894
