Jatan Kumar Garg vs Satayanarayan Tiwari

Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.—This revision has been filed by the applicant/complainant Jatan Kumar Garg against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore in Sessions Trial No.01./2010, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for framing the charge under Section 409 of IPC against respondents No.1 & 2.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/applicant filed a complaint against the respondent No.1 Satyanarayan Tiwari, Executive Engineer, Division II, Musakhedi, Indore and respondent No. 2 Smt. Pramod Trivedi, Accountant regarding his corrupt act on which respondent No.3/Special Police Establish (Lokayukat) Indore registered Crime No.09/2009 against the respondents No.1 & 2 under Section 13(1), C, D, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B of IPC after enquiry and investigated the matter. After investigation, it was found that respondents No.1 & 2 during the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.12.2005 withdrew the sum of Rs.5,02,99,480/- by self cheque instead of cross cheque and have not properly maintained the cash-book regarding that amount and violated the Government financial Rules in this regard and misused their position to withdraw the said amount. Investigation also revealed that respondent No.1 issued two cheques worth of Rs.29,298/- in the name of Sunil Kumar Pandey but instead of giving the said cheques to Sunil Kumar he himself withdrew the amount by forging his signature and dishonestly embezzled the said amount. Thereafter, the Special Police Establishment filed charge-sheet in the Special Court against respondents No.1 & 2 under Sections 13(1), C, D, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

On that complaint, the Special Court registered Special Case No.01/2010 and framed charges against respondent No.1 under Sections 13(1)D, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC and against respondent No.2 u/S. 13(1) D, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B of IPC and proceed with the trial.

During the trial, applicant filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. averting that in para 2 of the audit report prepared as per order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4773/2006, wherein it is mentioned that payment of Rs.5,02,99,480/- by self cheque instead of bearer cheque shows violation of Govt. financial rules and possibility of misuse of that amount, therefore, charge under Section 409 of IPC also be framed against respondents No.1 & 2.

Learned trial Court has rejected the application observing that although in the audit report, it is mentioned that respondents violated the financial rules and did not maintain the cash book properly and made payment of the amount through self cheque instead of bearer cheque but this is only a procedural violation. At the same time in the report, it is also mentioned that all 274 cheques that were issued by the respondents to withdraw the said amount have entry in the cash-book and that said amount was transferred to the subordinate employees for payment and also some payment was done by divisional office. So prima facie there is no evidence to frame charge under Section 409 of IPC against respondent no 1 and 2. Being aggrieved by this order complainant filed this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in para 2 of the audit report it is clearly mentioned that accused respondents No.1 & 2 have misappropriated the aforesaid amount and the trial Court has committed mistake in not framing the charge against them u/S.409 of IPC .

Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 submitted that the trial Court has framed charge on 03.12.2010 while the applicant filed this application u/S. 216 Cr.P.C on 17.06.2014 after five years to prolong the trial. So the application is not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is mentioned in the audit report that cheques of Rs.5,02,99,480/- issued by the accused/respondents No.1 & 2 were paid to other persons. There is no evidence to show that respondents issued cheques of the said amount for wrongful gain, so learned trial Court has not committed mistake in rejecting the application.

Although learned trial Court has framed the charges against the respondents No.1 & 2 on 03.12.2010 while the applicant filed application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. on 17.06.2014 but for amending the charge, application can be filed at any stage. The Hon''ble apex Court in the matter of Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha v. State of Haryanan and another (2016) 6 SCC 105 held that charge can be amended at any time. It is not to be understood, that unless evidence has been let in, charges already framed cannot be altered for that is not the purport of Section 216 Cr.P.C. the Court can be change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out that any stage. So merely on the ground that applicant filed the application after 5 years, the application cannot be rejected.

But as to the point of not framing of charge under Section 409 IPC by the trial court is concerned the relevant audit report which is part of charge-sheet reads as under:-

tkWap izfrosnu

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; csap bankSj dh fjV fiVh''ku dz0@4773@06 ,oa lapkyuky; ds i= dz0@vkbZ0,y0,Q0,0@vuq0nks@u0fu0@tkWap@3621&26] fnukad 27-06-2007 ds funsZ''kkuqlkj ueZnk ifj;kstuk la/kkj.k [kaM dz0&2 (uxjikfydk fuxe bankSj) ds ys[kksa o"kZ 2002&03 ls 2005&06 tkWap vof/k fnukad 01-11-2002 ls 31-12-2005 rd lsYQ pSdksa }kjk vkgfjr jkf''k;ksa ds nq:i;ksx laca/kh izdj.k dk tkWap izfrosnuA

1- lsYQ pSdksa dh lgk;d dS''kcqd vuqjf{kr ugha djuk %

dk;Zikyu ;a=h ueZnk ifj;kstuk la/kkj.k [kaM dz0&2 }kjk la/kkfjr dS''kcqd dsanzh; yksd fuekZ.k ys[kk lafgrk ds iSjk 6-6 ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls mDr fu;eksa ds iSjk 6.6.2(a) Nk;kizfr layXu ds funsZ''kkuqlkj eq[; dS''kcqd ds lkFk&lkFk lsYQ pSdksa ds vkgj.k ,oa forj.k dk ys[kk j[ks tkus ds fy, ,d lgk;d dS''kcqd i`Fkd ls vuqjf{kr dh tk;sxhA tkWap ny }kjk mDr tkWap vof/k dh lgk;d dS''kcqdsa tkWap gsrq ekWaxh tkus ij lacaf/kr lgk;d Jh xks;y }kjk vuqjf{kr dh tkuk ugha crk;k x;kA lsYQ pSDl dh i`Fkd ls dS''kcqd u j[kh tkuk ys[kk fu;eksa ds izfrdwy gSA mDr dS''kcqd u j[kh tkuk ys[kk fu;eksa ds izfrdwy gSA mDr dS''kcqd u j[ks tkus ls lsYQ pSDl ds }kjk vkgfjr uxn jkf''k ds laiw.kZ O; dk lek/kku u gks ldkA mDr dS''kcqd ds vHkko esa ;g Kkr u gks ldk fd lsYQ pSd ds ek/;e ls fdruh jkf''k vkgfjr dh xbZ Fkh mldh vko'';drk Fkh ;k ughaA ,d eq''r jkf''k vkgfjr dj /kujkf''k dk nq:i;ksx ,oa vuko'';d uxn jkf''k laxzg.k rks ugha fd;k x;k bl rF; dk lek/kku u gks ldkA lSYQ pSDl ls vkgj.k mlh fLFkfr esa gksrk gS tc fdlh dks uxn Hkqxrku djuk gksrk gS ;k NksVs&eksVs O; ftudk pSDl ls Hkqxrku laHko u gks muds fy;s lSYQ pSDl ls vkgj.k fd;k tkrk gSA vr% tkWap dk vk/kkj laLFkk dh eq[; dS''kcqdsa ,oa cSad LVsVesaV rFkk lc&fMohtuksa dh dS''kcqdsa rFkk Ogkmpj jgs ftudk voyksdu ,oa feyku fd, tkus ij fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj ikbZ xbZA

laLFkk }kjk o"kZ 2002&03 ls 2005&06 rd 01-04-2002 ls 31-12-2005 dh vof/k esa dqy 274 lsYQ pSd tkjh fd, tkus dh izekf.kr lwph ifjf''k"V&1 izLrqr dh xbZA mDr lHkh pSdksa dk dS''kcqd esa ys[kkadu ,oa O; gsrq v/khuLFk lgk;d ;af=;ksa dks gLrkarj.k fd;k tkuk rFkk laHkkxh; dk;kZy; ls Hkh dbZ dk;kZy;hu Hkqxrku ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks vLFkkbZ vfxze fn;k tkuk ik;k x;kA

2- fofHkUu QElZ ,oa O;fDr;ksa dks fu;eksa ds foijhr pSdksa ds ek/;e ls uxn Hkqxrku ik;k tkuk%

cSad LVsVesaV ls uxn izkIr pSdksa dk dS''kcqd esa feyku djus ij layXu lwph ifjf''k"V&2 vuqlkj 25 pSd laHkkxh; dk;kZy; }kjk lkexzh ,oa lsok iznk; drkZvksa dks tkjh fd;k tkuk dS''kcqd esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS laLFkk }kjk vius i= dz0@3550] fnukad 02-07-2007 Nk;kizfr layXu tkudkjh nh xbZ fd esllZ ,oa Bsdsnkjksa dks Hkqxrku (A/c Payee) pSDl ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gS ijarq fLFkfr blls fHkUu ikbZ xbZ D;ksafd mDr ifjf''k"V dz0&2 esa nf''kZr Hkqxrku cSad }kjk uxn fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS vxj Hkqxrku js[kkafdr (A/c Payee) pSd ls fd;k tkrk rks lacaf/kr pSd izkIrdrkZ ds i{k esa muds ys[kk esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k tkrk u fd uxn HkqxrkuA tSlk fd ifjf''k"V dz0&3 esa cSad LVsVesaV dk voyksdu djus ij mDr pSdksa dk uxnh Hkqxrku cSad ls izkIr fd;k tkuk vafdr ik;k x;k gSA blls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr pSd (Payees A/c only) u gksdj (Bearer) FksA bl izdkj js[kkafdr pSdkas dh ctk; (Bearer) pSdksa ds ek/;e ls uxnh Hkqxrku ds dkj.k ''kkldh; fu;eksa dk xaHkhj mYya?ku ,oa Hkqxrku jkf''k ds nq:i;ksx dh laHkkouk dks izdV djrk gSA

3- vLFkkbZ vfxzeksa dk vfu;fer iznk;%

dk;Zikyu ;a=h laHkkxh; dk;kZy; }kjk lsYQ pSdksa }kjk vkgfjr jkf''k esa ls vLFkkbZ vfxze v/khuLFk mi;af=;ksa dks fujarj fn, x, FksA fu;ekuqlkj iSjk 6-3-1 Nk;kizfr layXu gS mDr vfxze igys ls gh ikfjr eLVj jksYl vFkok vU; ns;dks ds fo:) fn, tkus pkfg, Fks tcfd tkWap ds nkSjku bl fu;e dk ikyu fd;k tkuk ugha ik;k x;k dk;Zikyu ;a=h }kjk Lofoosd ls ,oa laHkkfor O; ds vuqeku ds vk/kkj ij ,d eq''r jkf''k;ka lsYQ pSd ds ek/;e ls fujarj vkgfjr dh xbZ Fkh ftlls foRrh; vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx fd;k tkuk izrhr gqvkA

4- uxnh ''ks"k jkf''k dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu ugha ik;k tkuk%

iSjk 6-6-3 ,oa 6-6-6 Nk;kizfr layXu gS ds fu;ekuqlkj dS''kcqd dk ''ks"k fudkyrs le; uxnh jkf''k dks HkkSfrd :i ls izfrekg fxuk tkdj rnk''k; dh Vhi dS''kcqd esa fy[kh tkuk vko'';d Fkh fdarq mDr fu;e dk ikyu djuk ugha ik;k x;kA uxn jkf''k dh i`Fkd dS''kcqd la/kkfjr u dj uxn ,oa cSad ys[kksa dh fefJr dS''kcqd j[kh xbZ tks =qfViw.kZ gS bldk mYys[k fcUnq dz0 1 esa fd;k x;k gSA

5- dS''kcqdsa vgLrk{kfjr ,oa ;ksx izekf.kr ugha ik, tkuk%

iSjk 6-6-6 Nk;kizfr layXu gS ds vuqlkj laforj.k vf/kdkjh dk;Zikyu ;a=h bankSj dks izR;sd ekg ds var esa dS''kcqd can djrs le; vius gLrk{kj fnukad lfgr vafdr djus pkfg, Fks fdarq tkWap ds nkSjku laHkkxh; dk;kZy; dh leLr eq[; dS''kcqdsa vgLrk{kfjr ikbZ xbZA dS''kcqdksa esa dS''kcqd fy[kus okys deZpkjh ls ysdj ys[kkf/kdkjh ,oa dk;Zikyu ;a=h rd fdlh Hkh ''kkldh; lsod ds gLrk{kj gksuk ugha ik;k x;k dS''kcqdksa ds ;ksx ,oa ''ks"k dkcZu isafly ls fudkys x;s Fks mUgsa jcM+ ls feVk;k tkdj dHkh Hkh cnyk tkuk laHko Fkk ;ksxksa dh tkWap dS''kcqd fy[kus okys deZpkjh ls fHkUu vU; fdlh deZpkjh ls Hkh ugha djkbZ xbZ Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa dS''kcqdksa ds ;ksx ,oa ''ks"k vizekf.kr ik, x, tks ys[kk fu;eksa dk xaHkhj mYya?ku gS ,oa rRdkyhu dk;Zikyu ;a=h dh ys[kksa ds izfr ?kksj mis{kk ,oa mRrjnkf;Ro ls cpus ds iz;kl dks iznf''kZr djrk gSA vr% jksdM+ cfg;ka vgLrk{kfjr gksus ls vizekf.kr ,oa lafnX/k ys[kksa dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

6- dS''kcqd esa cSad esa tek /kujkf''k dk ''ks"k iznf''kZr ugha djuk ,oa dS''kcqd rFkk cSad ds ''ks"kksa dk feyku (Reconciliation) ugha djuk%

dsUnzh; yksd fuekZ.k lafgrk ds iSjk 6-6-6 ds vuqlkj izR;sd ekg ds var esa dS''kcqd can djrs le; cSad [kkrs esa tek ''ks"k ls dS''kcqd vuqlkj cSad esa tek /kujkf''k ds ''ks"kksa ls feyku (Reconciliation) djuk pkfg, Fkk fdarq dS''kcqd esa laLFkk ds LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj ''kk[kk uxj fuxe izkax.k bankSj esa pkyw [kkrk dz0 53003150303 esa tek /kukjkf''k dk dksbZ fooj.k vafdr ugha ik;k x;kA mDr cSad [kkrs esa dbZ ckj yk[kksa :i;ksa dk _.kkRed ''ks"k Fkk fdarq dS''kcqd mDr rF; dks iznf''kZr ugha djrh ,oa cSad [kkrs esa _.kkRed ''ks"k gksus ds mijkar Hkh fujarj Hkqxrku gsrq pSd tkjh fd, x, FksA bl izdkj la[;k ds ys[ks lafnX/k gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA"

The apex Court in the case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 349 held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. Thus a charge against a person can only be framed if there exists a strong suspicion but nothing less than that.Mere suspicion without any basis,could not be the reason for farming of charge against a person.

In this case also apart from the report no other supporting evidence is produced by prosecution along with the charge-sheet, which shows that except for Rs.29,298/- other amount was also embezzled or misappropriate by respondents No.1 & 2 regarding which the lower court has already framed charge. On the perusal of that report it is revealed that auditors only indicated of a possibility of misuse of funds and it is also mentioned in the audit report that cheques of Rs.5,02,99,480/- issued by the accused/respondents No.1 & 2 were paid to other persons. So there is no prima facie evidence on record which creates strong suspicion to frame the charge against respondents No.1 & 2 u/S. 409 of IPC regarding withdrawal of Rs.5,02,99,480/-.

The trial court has assigned good reason for not framing charge against respondents no.1 and 2 regarding withdrew the sum of Rs.5,02,99,480/- by self cheque instead of cross cheque under section 409 IPC. Although it is mentioned in the report that respondents have violated the financial rules and did not maintain the cash-book properly and made payment through cheque instead of bearer cheque but this is only a procedural violation which may lead to departmental enquiry but only on that basis without other supporting evidence showing that respondents used the amount dishonestly, charge u/S.409 of IPC cannot be made out. So it appears that trial Court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the application u/S.216 of Cr.P.C. accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as such.