Pramod vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision Nos. 62, 63 & 64/2012, whereby the order dated 2.5.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M., Khandwa in Criminal Case Nos. 6311, 6312 and 6313/2006 were set aside.

The prosecution''s case, in short is that, a Special Case No. 5/97 was filed by the S.H.O. Police Station, Pandhana before the Special Judge, Khandwa. Vide order dated 15.10.2001, the learned Special Judge, Khandwa had directed that the matter was related with 2-3 different societies and therefore, three separate charge sheets shall be filed within 45 days. Thereafter, three separate charge sheets were filed. It was alleged that in the various societies of Sayaidpur, Pandhana and Chamati, some irregularities were done which amounts to a crime therefore, for the separate society, a separate charge sheet is to be filed. After filing of three charge sheets, the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 2.5.2012 again directed to file a separate charge sheet for each and every accused and the matter was again sent to the S.H.O. Pandhana. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Khandwa vide order dated 27.7.2012 set aside the order passed by the C.J.M. Khandwa.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned C.J.M. Khandwa has misinterpreted the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 15.10.2001. It was directed by that order that, different irregularities were found in the different societies and therefore, a separate charge sheet be filed for each society. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the learned C.J.M. was correct and if he had passed an order without hearing the parties then, the matter is to be remanded for reconsideration and inordinate delay has been caused in the trial but no joint charge sheet can be filed. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha and others,

At present, inordinate delay has already been caused in the case and the learned C.J.M. was expected to frame the charges and in place of doing so, he again directed S.H.O. Pandhana to file the different charge sheets. For irregularities done in a particular society, all the connected accused persons can be tried simultaneously and therefore, only three charge sheets were required so that each charge sheet could be lodged for the activities done by the accused persons in a particular society. It is apparent that the S.H.O. Pandhana has complied with the order passed by the learned Special Judge in the year 2001 as found by learned Sessions Judge that a proper compliance was made by the S.H.O. Pandhana then, it is not required to remand the matter to the C.J.M. concerned so that he may hear both the parties and again to pass an order. When the order dated 15.10.2001 was duly complied then, there was no need to pass such an order as passed by the learned C.J.M. on 2.5.2012 therefore, it is not necessary to remand the matter for reconsideration. The factual position of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Santosh De (supra) is different from the present case and therefore, that judgment cannot be applied in the present case.

There is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khandwa and therefore, there is no basis by which the present petition may be accepted and the order passed by the revisionary Court may be interfered. Under such circumstances, there is no ground by which the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Pramod can be accepted. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court so that trial may proceed further and a copy of the order be also sent to the revisionary Court.