Ashok Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1045613
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-18-2013
AppellantAshok
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
in the high court of madhya pradesh, jabalpur single bench : hon’ble mr. justice n.k.gupta, j.criminal revision no.2333 of 2012 smt. rajni fouzdar versus state of m.p. shri manish datt senior advocate with shri yogesh soni, counsel for the applicant. shri s. k. kashyap, public prosecutor for the respondent/state. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- criminal revision no.2370/2012 pawan chouhan versus state of m.p. shri prakash upadhyay and shri prashant dubey, counsel for the applicant. shri s. k. kashyap, public prosecutor for the respondent/state. criminal revision no.154/2013 ashok versus state of m.p. shri s. k. gangrade, counsel for the applicant. shri s. k. kashyap, public prosecutor for the respondent/state. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- order (passed on the 18th day of march, 2013) these three revisions are connected with the common order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, sohagpur, district hoshangabad in an unregistered sessions trial which was for crime no.174/2012 registered at police station, - 2 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 sohagpur and therefore all these three revisions are decided with the common order.2. the applicants have challenged the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, sohagpur in aforesaid sessions trial whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 420, 468, 471 of i.p.c were framed against the applicants ashok and pawan chouhan whereas the charge of offence punishable under section 420 of i.p.c is framed against the applicant rajni fouzdar.3. the prosecution's case in short is that the state government has issued a scheme for procurement of wheat but, the benefit was to be given to the actual agriculturists and therefore agriculturists were directed to be registered. the registration of rajni fouzdar was done by patwari ashok. thereafter, it was found that the applicant pawan chouhan provided some wheat to adim jati sewa sahakari samiti, tekapar and therefore, a sum of rs.2,08,442.50 was deposited in the account of rajni fouzdar. thereafter, on complaint an enquiry was initiated and it was found that the alleged land of rajni fouzdar was never cultivated. it is filled up with various trees and it was lying like a jungle since last so many years and therefore, forgery and cheating was done by the accused persons. an fir was lodged and a case was registered.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties.5. learned senior advocate for the applicant rajni fouzdar has submitted that while framing the charges the trial court should have seen the entire evidence. it should not frame the charges - 3 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 mechanically. in support of his contention he has placed his reliance upon the various judgments of the supreme court in the case of “union of india vs. prafulla kumar samal and another”. (air 197.sc 366), “niranjan singh karam singh punjabi vs. jitendra bhimraj bijja and others”. (air 199.sc 1962.and “dilawar babu kurane vs. state of maharashtra”. (air 200.sc 564). it is also submitted by the learned senior advocate for the applicant rajni fouzdar that for consideration of evidence of offence punishable under section 420 of i.p.c it is to be seen that whether there was any dishonest intention on the part of applicant whereby she obtained some wrongful gain. the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prior to the registration of the fir the applicant rajni fouzdar had sent a letter to the bank that such amount was transferred to her account by a mistake and thereafter, that amount was returned to the concerned society and therefore, no wrongful gain was obtained by the applicant. in support of his contention the learned senior advocate for the applicant rajni fouzdar has placed reliance on the various judgments of the supreme court in the cases of “g. v. rao vs. l.h.v prasad and others”. [(2003) 3 scc 693]., “harmanpreet singh ahluwalia and others vs. state of punjab and others”. [(2009) 7 scc 712]., “dalip kaur and others vs. jagnar singh and another”. [(2009) 14 scc 696]., “dr. sharma's nursingh home vs. delhi administration and others”. [(1998) 8 scc 745]. and “s.v.l. murthy vs. state represented by cbi, hyderabad”. [(2009) 6 scc 77]. and therefore, it is prayed that the applicant rajni - 4 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 fouzdar may be discharged.6. the learned counsel for the applicant pawan chouhan has submitted that he was a transporter and there was no connivance of the applicant pawan chouhan in the matter. the learned counsel for the applicant ashok has submitted that ashok was a patwari and while making the registration cards, he contacted kapil fouzdar and thereafter, on his direction he prepared the registration card and thereafter, wheat was supplied. the applicant ashok has done his duty and there was no connivance of the applicant ashok along with the other co-accused persons. the learned counsel for the applicants ashok and pawan chouhan have also submitted that the applicants be discharged from the charges framed by the trial court.7. after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is true that while framing the charges the trial court has to rely upon the documents and evidence produced by the prosecution. with the help of the documents of the prosecution, if case of patwari ashok is considered, then it would be apparent that he prepared the registration card on the basis of the oral information given by kapil fouzdar. he was patwari of the area and therefore, he was required to register an agriculturist who had sown wheat on his land and therefore, before making such documents he should have examined as to whether there was any survey report of revenue inspector or his own report that in the past year any agricultural produce was taken by rajni fouzdar on that field or not. under such circumstances, prima facie, it is apparent - 5 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 that the applicant ashok prepared a forged document with the knowledge that it was forged and thereafter it was used. such forgery was done to get wrongful advantage along with co-accused rajni fouzdar and therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant ashok.8. the applicant pawan chouhan has taken the objection that he is simply a transporter but for procurement of the wheat, he was expected to take the wheat from the field of the co-accused rajni to the society whereas the fields of the applicant rajni fouzdar were lying as jungle then certainly the applicant pawan chouhan did not bring the wheat of some inferior quality from the fields of the applicant rajni fouzdar and therefore, he brought the wheat to the society from some where else. under such circumstances, his connivance and common intention is very well visible in the case when a huge quantity of wheat was provided to the society for procurement to obtain its cost with subsidy and therefore, no mistake has been committed by the trial court in framing of the charges against the applicant pawan chouhan.9. so far as the case of rajni fouzdar is concerned, it is true that neither her photo or her signature were appended on the registration card. she has also shown that she directed the bank that an amount was received due to mistake and it may be returned but if act of the applicant pawan chouhan is considered then it is apparent that he provided a huge quantity of wheat to the society and got its sale price along with the subsidy in the account of applicant rajni fouzdar. there was no necessity of pawan chouhan - 6 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 to earn some money for rajni fouzdar unless he had a share in that money otherwise if some amount is deposited in the account of rajni fouzdar then the accused pawan chouhan could not get anything out of that account. the possibility cannot be ruled out that after getting knowledge that an enquiry is initiated the applicant rajni fouzdar would have written a letter to the bank in such a manner. the amount was credited in her account on 25.4.2012 and she kept silent for 9 days. thereafter on 4.5.2012 she wrote a letter to the concerned bank for the first time. therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that after getting the knowledge of enquiry she tried to show her innocence in the transaction. if she was not involved in the crime then what was the necessity of the patwari ashok and the applicant pawan chouhan to provide such an advantage in lacs of rupees to the applicant rajni fouzdar whereas there was no crop grown in the field of rajni fouzdar. hence by documents produced by the applicant rajni fouzdar prima facie, it cannot be said that she was not involved in the crime. if she was not involved in the crime then there was no need to the co-accused ashok and pawan chouhan to do such an act in her favour. hence prima facie, it is apparent that the forged documents were prepared without sowing any wheat on the field of rajni fouzdar. a huge quantity of wheat was produced before the society for procurement and the amount was transferred in the account of the applicant rajni fouzdar and therefore, prima facie she obtained the financial benefit by way of cheating. hence no mistake has been committed by the trial court in framing of the charges punishable under section 420 of i.p.c - 7 -                                                      criminal revision no.2333/2012 criminal revision no.2370/2012 criminal revision no.154/2013 against the applicant rajni fouzdar.10. on the basis of the aforesaid discussion there is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned additional sessions judge and therefore, there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicants can be accepted.11. consequently all the three revisions are hereby dismissed.12. copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information and direction to proceed with the trial. (n.k.gupta) judge 18 3/2013 bina
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2333 of 2012 Smt. Rajni Fouzdar VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Manish Datt Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Pawan Chouhan VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Prakash Upadhyay and Shri Prashant Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Criminal Revision No.154/2013 Ashok VERSUS State of M.P. Shri S. K. Gangrade, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(Passed on the 18th day of March, 2013) These three revisions are connected with the common order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in an unregistered Sessions Trial which was for Crime No.174/2012 registered at Police Station, - 2 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 Sohagpur and therefore all these three revisions are decided with the common order.

2. The applicants have challenged the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in aforesaid Sessions Trial whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C were framed against the applicants Ashok and Pawan Chouhan whereas the charge of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C is framed against the applicant Rajni Fouzdar.

3. The prosecution's case in short is that the State Government has issued a scheme for procurement of wheat but, the benefit was to be given to the actual agriculturists and therefore agriculturists were directed to be registered. The registration of Rajni Fouzdar was done by Patwari Ashok. Thereafter, it was found that the applicant Pawan Chouhan provided some wheat to Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Tekapar and therefore, a sum of Rs.2,08,442.50 was deposited in the account of Rajni Fouzdar. Thereafter, on complaint an enquiry was initiated and it was found that the alleged land of Rajni Fouzdar was never cultivated. It is filled up with various trees and it was lying like a jungle since last so many years and therefore, forgery and cheating was done by the accused persons. An FIR was lodged and a case was registered.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Rajni Fouzdar has submitted that while framing the charges the trial Court should have seen the entire evidence. It should not frame the charges - 3 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 mechanically. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another”. (AIR 197.SC 366), “Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others”. (AIR 199.SC 1962.and “Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra”. (AIR 200.SC 564). It is also submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Rajni Fouzdar that for consideration of evidence of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C it is to be seen that whether there was any dishonest intention on the part of applicant whereby she obtained some wrongful gain. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prior to the registration of the FIR the applicant Rajni Fouzdar had sent a letter to the Bank that such amount was transferred to her account by a mistake and thereafter, that amount was returned to the concerned Society and therefore, no wrongful gain was obtained by the applicant. In support of his contention the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Rajni Fouzdar has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of “G. V. Rao Vs. L.H.V Prasad and others”. [(2003) 3 SCC 693]., “Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Vs. State of Punjab and others”. [(2009) 7 SCC 712]., “Dalip Kaur and others Vs. Jagnar Singh and another”. [(2009) 14 SCC 696]., “Dr. Sharma's Nursingh Home Vs. Delhi Administration and others”. [(1998) 8 SCC 745]. and “S.V.L. Murthy Vs. State represented by CBI, Hyderabad”. [(2009) 6 SCC 77]. and therefore, it is prayed that the applicant Rajni - 4 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 Fouzdar may be discharged.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant Pawan Chouhan has submitted that he was a transporter and there was no connivance of the applicant Pawan Chouhan in the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant Ashok has submitted that Ashok was a Patwari and while making the registration cards, he contacted Kapil Fouzdar and thereafter, on his direction he prepared the registration card and thereafter, wheat was supplied. The applicant Ashok has done his duty and there was no connivance of the applicant Ashok along with the other co-accused persons. The learned counsel for the applicants Ashok and Pawan Chouhan have also submitted that the applicants be discharged from the charges framed by the trial Court.

7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is true that while framing the charges the trial Court has to rely upon the documents and evidence produced by the prosecution. With the help of the documents of the prosecution, if case of Patwari Ashok is considered, then it would be apparent that he prepared the registration card on the basis of the oral information given by Kapil Fouzdar. He was Patwari of the area and therefore, he was required to register an agriculturist who had sown wheat on his land and therefore, before making such documents he should have examined as to whether there was any survey report of Revenue Inspector or his own report that in the past year any agricultural produce was taken by Rajni Fouzdar on that field or not. Under such circumstances, prima facie, it is apparent - 5 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 that the applicant Ashok prepared a forged document with the knowledge that it was forged and thereafter it was used. Such forgery was done to get wrongful advantage along with co-accused Rajni Fouzdar and therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant Ashok.

8. The applicant Pawan Chouhan has taken the objection that he is simply a transporter but for procurement of the wheat, he was expected to take the wheat from the field of the co-accused Rajni to the Society whereas the fields of the applicant Rajni Fouzdar were lying as jungle then certainly the applicant Pawan Chouhan did not bring the wheat of some inferior quality from the fields of the applicant Rajni Fouzdar and therefore, he brought the wheat to the Society from some where else. Under such circumstances, his connivance and common intention is very well visible in the case when a huge quantity of wheat was provided to the Society for procurement to obtain its cost with subsidy and therefore, no mistake has been committed by the trial Court in framing of the charges against the applicant Pawan Chouhan.

9. So far as the case of Rajni Fouzdar is concerned, it is true that neither her photo or her signature were appended on the registration card. She has also shown that she directed the Bank that an amount was received due to mistake and it may be returned but if act of the applicant Pawan Chouhan is considered then it is apparent that he provided a huge quantity of wheat to the Society and got its sale price along with the subsidy in the account of applicant Rajni Fouzdar. There was no necessity of Pawan Chouhan - 6 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 to earn some money for Rajni Fouzdar unless he had a share in that money otherwise if some amount is deposited in the account of Rajni Fouzdar then the accused Pawan Chouhan could not get anything out of that account. The possibility cannot be ruled out that after getting knowledge that an enquiry is initiated the applicant Rajni Fouzdar would have written a letter to the Bank in such a manner. The amount was credited in her account on 25.4.2012 and she kept silent for 9 days. Thereafter on 4.5.2012 she wrote a letter to the concerned Bank for the first time. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that after getting the knowledge of enquiry she tried to show her innocence in the transaction. If she was not involved in the crime then what was the necessity of the Patwari Ashok and the applicant Pawan Chouhan to provide such an advantage in lacs of rupees to the applicant Rajni Fouzdar whereas there was no crop grown in the field of Rajni Fouzdar. Hence by documents produced by the applicant Rajni Fouzdar prima facie, it cannot be said that she was not involved in the crime. If she was not involved in the crime then there was no need to the co-accused Ashok and Pawan Chouhan to do such an act in her favour. Hence prima facie, it is apparent that the forged documents were prepared without sowing any wheat on the field of Rajni Fouzdar. A huge quantity of wheat was produced before the Society for procurement and the amount was transferred in the account of the applicant Rajni Fouzdar and therefore, prima facie she obtained the financial benefit by way of cheating. Hence no mistake has been committed by the trial Court in framing of the charges punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C - 7 -                                                      Criminal Revision No.2333/2012 Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Criminal Revision No.154/2013 against the applicant Rajni Fouzdar.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion there is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and therefore, there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicants can be accepted.

11. Consequently all the three revisions are hereby dismissed.

12. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and direction to proceed with the trial. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 18 3/2013 bina