Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
S.C. SHARMA, ALOK VERMA, JJ.
Rakesh Singh Rathore - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Cri. R. Nos. 1512 and 1513 of 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.C. Bagadiya, Senior Advocate and Sudha Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent:Pushyamitra Bhargava, Advocate
The judgment established the principle that strong evidence is required to prove criminal offenses, and procedural irregularities in the investigation process may impact the validity of the charges.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Charges framed under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act - The court found that no case was made out against the present applicant for framing charges under the mentioned sections.
Fact of the Case:
The present applicant, an Executive Engineer, was charged under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged misappropriation of government funds and substandard construction work under the 'MANREGA' Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prima facie no case was made out against the present applicant for framing charges under the mentioned sections.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility of the applicant, the inspection process, jurisdiction of the investigating officer, and the procedural irregularities in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of strong evidence to prove the alleged offenses, the absence of independent investigation, and the failure to follow prescribed procedures in the inspection process.
Final Decision: The revisions were allowed, and the present applicant was discharged from the offenses under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act in both cases.
ALOK VERMA, J.
1. This common order shall govern disposal of Cr. R. Nos. 1512/2016 and 1513/2016. The facts in both the cases are common except the work involved.
2. These revisions are filed under Section 397/401 r/w section 482 of Cr.P.C. and is directed against the order passed by learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Barwa in Special Session Trial No. 2/2016 dated 27.08.2016, by which, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the present applicant and Cr.R. No. 1513/2016 is an application under the same provisions of law is filed challenging the order passed by the Special Judge dated 27.08.2017 in Session Trial No. 1/2016 pending before him. The learned Special judge also dismissed an application under Section 227 filed by the present applicant in both the cases.
3. In both the cases charges were framed under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. According to prosecution story, the present applicant was posted as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Service Division, Barwani under 'MANREGA' Scheme. A complaint was received in the year 2009 regarding poor quality of construction of some of the works constructed by the aforesaid division during the incumbency of the present applicant as Executive Engineer. A team of engineers was formed and the works were inspected by the team.
5. In Cr.R. No. 1512/2016, construction of GSB road from Badgaon to Malfalya was involved. It was alleged that administrative sanction for Rs. 24.73 lacs was issued by the Collector, Barwani and construction of the work was started on 31.07.2006 which continued up to 23.12.2006. Total expenditure incurred on the construction was said to be Rs. 21,73,000/-. Total length sanction was 3.25 Km but only 3.00 Km work was done. Allegations were that sub-standard work was done and no proper supervision was maintained during the construction. Total valuation of work done was found to be Rs. 11,21,379/- and it was less than Rs. 21,73,000/- from the actual amount paid, and therefore, it was alleged that there was a misappropriation of Government fund. The co-accused persons made false entries in the measurement books, and therefore, the crime was registered, investigation was done and charges were framed under Sections 409 & 420, of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. In Cr.R. No. 1513/2016 construction work of GSB Road from Jaahur to Bhadgone was involved. The total amount paid on this construction was 39,59,583/-. As per the measurement books, 4 Km road was constructed, however, on physical check, only 3.30 Km road was found on the site. The same allegations of substandard of construction work and misappropriation of Rs. 8,45,006/- was alleged against the present applicant.
7. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual position, these revisions against the impugned order are filed on the ground that (i) responsibility of maintaining proper standard was on the co-accused and not on the applicant, who was posted as Executive Engineer in the Division. The actual payment was not made by him. There was no unlawful gain on his part, and therefore, no criminal charge is made out against him (ii) the inspection of the work was done by such officers, who were below the rank of the present applicant. They were not properly and technically qualified (iii) the present applicant only issued technical sanction of the work and no specific role was assigned in the charge-sheet against him (iv) during the construction work, the work was not properly supervised by the co-accused persons and after completion of the construction, the road was not properly maintained, and therefore, after length of total constructed road was found less than what was mentioned in the measurement books, was due to the fact that due to non-maintenance, the mark of construction of road, which was temporary road constructed to provide employment to rural people vanished (v) age of the GSB Road was asse
