IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9185 of 2015

NARESH SAWNLA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava- Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

WITH

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12241 of 2014

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Abhijeet Singh Tomar- Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9918 of 2015

KAMMOD SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.

Appearance:

Shri Romesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9919 of 2015

NARENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.

Appearance:

Shri Romesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 554 of 2016 SANJAY PANCHARATNA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

ORDER

1. These five petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and also against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Revisional Court affirming the same.

2. As all the petitions arise out of the same FIR, same inquiry report, same charge-sheet and same orders of courts below, and involve overlapping factual and legal issues, they are being decided by this common order, though facts and grounds of each petition are being considered separately.

3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, inquiry report and charge-sheet, is that on 04.03.2006, the District Supply Officer, Vidisha, along with Junior Supply Officer and other revenue officials conducted a surprise inspection at Swastik Agro Mill, Gyaraspur Road Vidisha.

4. During inspection, large quantities of wheat packed in gunny bags not bearing FCI marking were found stored in the premises. Upon verification, it was found that the wheat was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) to BPL card holders, and had been diverted from the authorized route and destination.

5. The inquiry revealed that wheat issued by the M.P. State Civil Supply Corporation for transportation and delivery to fair price shops was not delivered at the designated places, but was instead unloaded mid-way and stored in private godowns, allegedly with intent to misuse and black-market the same, in violation of the Public Distribution System (Control) order. 6. On the basis of the inquiry report dated 13.03.2006, FIR was registered on 23.03.2006 at Crime No.119/2006, Police Station Dehat, Vidisha, initially under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and during investigation, Sections 406 and 407 IPC were added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against multiple accused including the present petitioners.

Detailed facts and contentions of case M.Cr.C. No.9185/2015-

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated merely on the ground that he had taken a godown on rent from Kammod Singh for a limited period and thereafter handed it over to co- accused Narendra Raghuvanshi. According to him, no wheat was ever entrusted to him, and he had no control over storage or transportation of the wheat.

8. It is further argued that neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet has the prosecution specified which Control Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated, and therefore the charge under Section 3/7 EC Act is legally unsustainable.

Facts and contentions of case M.Cr.C. No.12241/2014-

9. Learned counsel for the petiti