1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR
Cr.R.No. 1501/2011
Ramlal Athya
Vs.
State of M.P
For the Applicant : Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate.
For Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA.
ORDER
(16/11/2011)
Per : U.C.Maheshwari J.
The applicant/accused, has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order
dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Ist A.S.J. Sagar in S.T No.391/10 framing the
charges against him for the offence of section 420 read with section 34, 467 read
with 34 and 468 read with section 120-B of the IPC.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 13.6.08, at police
out-post Shahpur, a letter signed by J.P.Sen,Chief Municipality Officer, Shahpur,
was received contending that the State Govt. implemented a scheme named of
“National Family Relief Fund” for the persons who are living below poverty line,
according to which, on death of Karta of the family, Rs.10,000/-, is given to the
successor of such Karta. On 26.11.07, one Smt Phoolabai alias Kamalrani w/o
Bhujbal had got the death certificate of her alive husband Bhujbal Sour S/o
Kashiram by adopting the wrong process and contrary to the procedure.
Subsequent to it, on dated 27.11.07, said Phoolabai filed another application
contending that her husband said Bhujbal Sour, whose name was stated in
S.No.2469 in the list of the persons being under below poverty line, has passed
away with a prayer for giving the sum under the aforesaid scheme. Said
2
application was forwarded by C.M.O to Branch Assistant Ramlal Athya, the
applicant herein for appropriate proceedings. Such application was filed in a
prescribed form in which some of the information was filled by the Ward Member
Prem Rani. After processing the application, the Branch Assistant produced such
form before him, on which, he placed the same in the meeting of Municipality. In
the meeting dated 28.12.07, in presence of said Member Premrani, such
application was allowed. Pursuant to that, through cheque dated 31.1.08,
Rs.10,000/- was given to said Phoolabai under the aforesaid scheme. After
disbursement of such sum, the office of said C.M.O came to know from news
paper that said Bhujbal did not die and was still alive but with the assistance of
official of Nagar Panchayat, said Phoolabai, by practicing fraud with personation
got the fabricated death certificate of Bhujbal and on that basis, the above
mentioned sum of the Govt. Fund (scheme), was taken by her under wrong
premises, on which, by passing the resolution No.4 dated 23.5.08 by the Nagar
Panchayat the decision to get register the offence was taken. It was also revealed
that subsequent to obtaining the aforesaid cheque, by supplying wrong
information to the Bank, she opened the account and got the cheque encashed. On
the aforesaid information, prima facie offence of section 420,467,468,409 read
with section 34 were made out, on which, Crime No.0/08 was registered at Police
outpost Shahpur and the same was sent to P.S. Sanodha for registration of regular
crime where on dated 28.6.08, the offence was registered as Crime No.120/08. In
the course of the investigation, various papers including the papers showing that
said Bhujbal is alive, the application submitted by accused Phoolabai in the office
of the Nagar Panchayat Shahpur, proceedings of Nagar Panchayat were seized.
The case diary statements of various witnesses including the aforesaid Bhujbal,
the alive husband of accused Phoolabai, were recorded. In investigation it was
3
also revealed that the present applicant Ramlal Athya being branch Assistant
working in the office of Nagar Panchayat Shahpur, was also involved with the
accused Phoolabai in the criminal conspiracy and committed such offence.
Pursuant to which the application for aforesaid scheme was processed and said
accused had received the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- by submitting the forged
and fabricated document and also by practicing the fraud with personation and
concealing the fact that her husband is alive. On completion of the investigation
along with the aforesaid main accused Phoolabai, the applicant was also charge
sheeted.
3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the papers
of the charge sheet on framing the charges of section 420/34,467/34 and 468/120-
B of the IPC against the present applicant, he abjured the guilt and thereafter being
aggrieved by such order has come forward to this court with this revision with a
prayer to discharge him from said charges.
4. Shri Vijay Nayak, learned appearing counsel of the applicant after taking
me through the papers of the charge sheet including the FIR and the interrogatory
statements of the witnesses, said that mere perusal of such papers, it is apparent
that the impugned application was neither prepared nor anything was done in it by
the present applicant. The same was submitted in the office of the Nagar
Panchayat before the C.M.O by the aforesaid accused Phoolabai with her
signature and other necessary requisites. As per requirement of the Rules of such
scheme some information in such form were filled-up by Premrani, the ward
member of such Nagar Panchayat. As per the available record of the charge sheet,
after filing the aforesaid application by co-accused Phoolabai in the office of the
CMO, the same was forwarded to the applicant to process the same and the
applicant has carried-out his duty to process and prepare the matter for placing it
4
before the meeting of Nagar Panchayat and same was placed by the CMO in the
concerned meeting of Nagar Panchayat in which the resolution, accepting such
application was passed. In such situation, it would not be inferred that at any
stage of the matter, the applicant had assisted Phoolabai either in obtaining the
fabricated forged and false document or in practicing the alleged fraud with
personation or otherwise for obtaining the sum of the aforesaid scheme.
According to his submission, there is no prima facie evidence in the charge sheet
showing the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence or it’s
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Phoolabai and by placing his reliance on
a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of
Maharashtra-2002(2) SCC 135 prayed for discharging the applicant from the
alleged charges by admitting and allowing this revision.
5. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments, I have
carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet placed on the record as well
as the impugned order and the charges framed by the trial court. It is apparent
from the FIR that Phoolabai alias Kamalrani w/o Bhujbal Sour had filed the
application in the office of CMO of Nagar Panchayat Shahpur stating that her
husband Bhujbal Sour passed away. The death certificate of her alive husband
was also obtained by her under the wrong process and contrary to the prescribed
procedure. Some requisite information was filled-up in the form by the elected
ward member with her signature. After receiving such application, said CMO has
directed and handed-over the same to the present applicant to process and prepare
the same for placing in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat for its approval to pay the
requisite sum under the aforesaid scheme. In such premises while processing such
application, the applicant was duty bound to verify the fact, whether said Bhujbal
Sour had passed away or not ? It appears from the charge sheet that without
5
verifying such information, the present applicant with the connivance of said
Phoolabai placed the matter before the CMO and such act was committed by the
applicant without verifying the information regarding death of said Bhujbal from
the concerned record of Nagar Panchayat in which the birth and death are
registered. In such premises it appears that inspite knowing the fact that
Phoolabai had filed the claim under the aforesaid scheme on the basis of false and
fabricated document, obtained by practicing fraud and personation stating her
alive husband to be a dead person, while the applicant has processed the matter
and involved himself in such criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused of the
case for the reasons best known to the applicant and other co-accused which is yet
to be examined by the trial court after recording the evidence.
6. It is settle proposition of the law that whenever on the basis of the evidence
collected by the investigating agency and placed on the record along with the
charge sheet if slight prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence are made out
against the accused like the applicant then there is no option with the trial court
except to frame the charge of the alleged offence. In the light of this proposition
of the law, on examining the papers of the charge sheet, it is apparent that
Phoolabai in the life-time of her husband Bhujbal with the assistance of official of
Nagar Pancyayat, obtained his aforesaid death certificate by personation and
practicing the fraud and on that basis filed the application for extending her the
benefit of above mentioned scheme. It is also apparent that knowing all such
things without verifying from the record such application, being official of the
Nagar Panchayat, was processed by the applicant along with some other person of
his office. Accordingly applicant involved himself not only in processing the
application but also facilitated the co-accused in committing the alleged offence of
practicing fraud with personation and fabricating the false document. In such
6
premises, prima facie it would be deemed that applicant involved himself with
Phoolabai in her criminal conspiracy for committing the alleged offence.
7. So far the case law cited on behalf of the applicant Dilawar Balu (supra) is
concerned, the same being distinguishable on facts and principle both with the
present matter is not helping to the applicant. Such case was decided in some
different scenario and also taking into consideration the provision of section 5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is not the situation in the case at hand.
So, the applicant could not be benefited on the basis of such citation.
8. Apart the above, by referring the case diary statements of some witnesses it
was argued by the applicant’s counsel that no witness has stated anything against
the applicant implicating him with the alleged offence, therefore, in such
premises, also the charge could not be framed against the applicant is concerned, it
is suffice to say that at the initial stage of sending the report in writing by the
CMO to the police, the averments regarding involvement of the applicant with the
alleged offence are stated. Such fact is yet to be examined and appreciated by the
trial court after recording the evidence. Without recording the evidence and its
appreciation, the aforesaid averment of the FIR and other available prima facie
evidence in the charge sheet against the applicant could not be ignored at the stage
of framing the charge. Besides this, it is apparent from the case diary statement of
Bhujbal that he was alive on the date of filing the application by Phoolabai and
also at the time of processing the same by applicant. In such premises also, the
applicant does not deserve to be discharged from the charges framed by the trial
court.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that keeping in view all the
aforesaid circumstances, the trial court has rightly framed the charges against the
applicant for the aforesaid offence and therefore the impugned order does not
7
require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
Consequently, this revision, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the
initial stage of motion hearing.
(U.C.Maheshwari)
Judge
MKL
8
