Prakash Chandra Kaushik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046784
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-07-2013
AppellantPrakash Chandra Kaushik
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
crr no.1864/2011 criminal revision no.1864/2011 7.3.2013 shri sankalp kochar, counsel for the applicant. shri ajay tamrakar, panel lawyer for the state/respondent. as prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. the applicant has challenged the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the learned firs.additional sessions judge, chhatarpur in s.t.no.18/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 409, 420 of ipc were framed against the applicant. the prosecution's case, in short, is that, in the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, the applicant was secretary of village panchayat gaur. in connivance with the sarpanch ghasiram tiwari, he made payment in the various schemes like mnrega, kapil dhara, plantation scheme, scheme relating to construction of ponds and so many schemes. a sum of rs.32,91,838/- was withdrawn for expenditure, relating to aforesaid schemes but, ultimately, it was found that only a work of rs.13,74,292/- was done at the spot and therefore, a sum of rs.19,17,546/- was misappropriated by the applicant alongwith the sarpanch and therefore, he committed an offence of breach of trust. crr no.1864/2011 similarly, such amount was received by the applicant, by way of a cheating. the learned additional sessions judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under sections 409 and 420 of ipc against the applicant. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage. the learned counsel for the applicant has referred the m.p.panchayat (regulation of relations between panchayats and panchayat and other local authorities) rules, 1994 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'the rules') and submitted that the sarpanch was not responsible for functioning of the gram panchayat. also, it is contended that the fir was to be lodged against the ceo, janpad panchayat, who was controller of the scheme for work in mnrega scheme. the programming officer is responsible for each and every work done and a sub-engineer who approves the work done of scheme is also responsible for the aforesaid offences. the applicant had nothing to do with the payment of money. he was directed to countersign the cheque crr no.1864/2011 alongwith sarpanch and therefore, he was not at all responsible. if some accused persons are not added as accused in the case then the applicant has ample opportunity to move an application under section 319 of the cr.p.c.at the appropriate stage for making those persons to be accused and therefore, the duties and responsibilities of other office bearers cannot be considered at this stage. it is apparent that no amount can be disbursed without passing a cheque and cheque is expected to be signed by the sarpanch as well as the panchayat secretary. it is apparent that a huge amount was withdrawn from the funds of various schemes and the relative work was not done. it was the duty of the applicant to refuse to append his signature on the various cheques, which were deposited with the bank for withdrawal of the amount and since he appended his signatures on various cheques and therefore, prima facie, it shall be presumed that he has common intention with the sarpanch and only with connivance with the applicant, the sarpanch could do such misappropriation. prima facie offence punishable under sections 409 and 420 of ipc is constituted against the applicant and therefore, charges of such offence could be framed against the crr no.1864/2011 applicant. there is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned firs.additional sessions judge, chhatarpur and therefore, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. consequently, the revision petition filed by the applicant against the impugned order is hereby dismissed. a copy of the order be sent to the trial court alongwith its record for information. (n.k.gupta) judge pushpendra
Judgment:

CRR No.1864/2011 Criminal Revision No.1864/2011 7.3.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T.No.18/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 409, 420 of IPC were framed against the applicant.

The prosecution's case, in short, is that, in the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, the applicant was Secretary of village Panchayat Gaur.

In connivance with the Sarpanch Ghasiram Tiwari, he made payment in the various schemes like MNREGA, Kapil Dhara, Plantation scheme, scheme relating to construction of ponds and so many schemes.

A sum of Rs.32,91,838/- was withdrawn for expenditure, relating to aforesaid schemes but, ultimately, it was found that only a work of Rs.13,74,292/- was done at the spot and therefore, a sum of Rs.19,17,546/- was misappropriated by the applicant alongwith the Sarpanch and therefore, he committed an offence of breach of trust.

CRR No.1864/2011 Similarly, such amount was received by the applicant, by way of a cheating.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under sections 409 and 420 of IPC against the applicant.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage.

The learned counsel for the applicant has referred the M.P.Panchayat (Regulation of Relations between Panchayats and Panchayat and other Local authorities) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'The Rules') and submitted that the Sarpanch was not responsible for functioning of the Gram Panchayat.

Also, it is contended that the FIR was to be lodged against the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, who was controller of the scheme for work in MNREGA scheme.

The Programming officer is responsible for each and every work done and a Sub-Engineer who approves the work done of scheme is also responsible for the aforesaid offences.

The applicant had nothing to do with the payment of money.

He was directed to countersign the cheque CRR No.1864/2011 alongwith Sarpanch and therefore, he was not at all responsible.

If some accused persons are not added as accused in the case then the applicant has ample opportunity to move an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C.at the appropriate stage for making those persons to be accused and therefore, the duties and responsibilities of other office bearers cannot be considered at this stage.

It is apparent that no amount can be disbursed without passing a cheque and cheque is expected to be signed by the Sarpanch as well as the Panchayat secretary.

It is apparent that a huge amount was withdrawn from the funds of various schemes and the relative work was not done.

It was the duty of the applicant to refuse to append his signature on the various cheques, which were deposited with the bank for withdrawal of the amount and since he appended his signatures on various cheques and therefore, prima facie, it shall be presumed that he has common intention with the Sarpanch and only with connivance with the applicant, the Sarpanch could do such misappropriation.

Prima facie offence punishable under sections 409 and 420 of IPC is constituted against the applicant and therefore, charges of such offence could be framed against the CRR No.1864/2011 applicant.

There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur and therefore, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the applicant against the impugned order is hereby dismissed.

A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra