AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Applicant has filed the present revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.36/2017 whereby the charge under section 420/34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.
As per the prosecution story M.L.Damar, the Block Education Officer, Ratlam submitted a written complaint dated 04.07.2015 in Police Station Namli disclosing commission of offence by Shailendra Singh Jatav, Assistant Grade-II along with Jagdishchandra Boyan, Assistant Teacher & Ashok Kumar Raikwar, Guest Teacher for misappropriating the government fund of Rs.21,78,988/-. As per the complaint Shailendra Singh Jatav while his posting in the Higher Secondary School, Namli from 23.03.2010 to 15.12.2014 has committed the aforesaid embezzlement by transferring the government fund in his account and in the account of his wife and mother (present applicant). He has deposited more than the entitled amount in the accounts of Ashok Kumar Raikwar and Jagdishchandra Boyan. On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered an FIR on 12.07.2015 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 34 of the IPC against Shailendra Singh Jatav, Jagdishchandra Boyan & Ashok Kumar Raikwar and started investigation. After investigation Challan was filed against the aforesaid three Govt. employees along with the present applicant (mother of Shailendra Singh Jatav) and his wife. Learned Sessions Court after examining the case diary has prima facie found that the accused has opened the account of present applicant and transferred the government fund to her account, therefore, she has committed the offence punishable under section 420/34 of the IPC and the said amount has been transferred by Shailendra Singh Jatav while working as public servant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid framing of charge, applicant has filed the present petition before this Court.
Shri M.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is the mother of Shailendra Singh Jatav, who was a government employee. She is residing separately at Gwalior and she was not aware about the deposit of any amount in her saving account. She is getting family pension after the death of her husband who was also a government employee and merely because some amount alleged to have been transferred in her bank account, she cannot be made accused under section 420 read with section 34 of the IPC as she has not committed any cheating with the government. In support of his contention he is placing reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & others vs. State of Bihar & another, 2010 XRI.L.J 2223; Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay vs. State of U.P & another 2018 Cr.L.R (SC) 67 and the order passed by this Court dated 15.05.2017 in MCRC No.3650/2017 in which the FIR has been quashed.
Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the applicant has been made accused with the aid of section 34 of the IPC. Though she was not a government employee but she received huge amount in her bank account through her son. During investigation police has collected the information from the Allahabad bank where the applicant is having the saving account. From the period 23.03.2010 to 15.12.2014 certain amount was deposited by the main accused in her account by way of transfer. During trial the applicant will get opportunity to explain such transactions in her account, therefore, at this stage her defence cannot be considered for quashment of the charge.
It is correct that there is no direct allegation against the applicant that she has committed any cheating with the government and received the money but she is being charged with the aid of section 34 of the IPC as her son embezzled government money to the tune of Rs.19,66,927/- and deposited it in her account and the account of his wife.
Earlier, the applicant filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C (MCRC No.18321/2018) seeking quashment of the FIR which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2018 by placing reliance over the judgment passed in the case of Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P (2017) 13 SCC 369. The daughter-in-law of the applicant has also filed a revision (CRR No.426/2020) against the charge and that too has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2020.
Recently, in the case of Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam & others 2020 (1) JLJ 381 (SC), the Apex Court has held that at the time of framing of charges only prima face case is to be seen whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt or not. While evaluating the material strict standard of proof is not required and only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. In the present case, the applicant was neither a government employee nor a beneficiary. She was not entitled to receive the said amount in her account, however, she received the sum without any protest, therefore, prima facie, the involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. All the grounds raised in this petition are matters of evidence in trial, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.