The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kamlesh Kumar Gautam
2023 Latest Caselaw 228 MP

                                                        1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                                                       &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                            ON THE 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7536 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SPECIAL
                          POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT REWA DISTRICT
                          JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    KAMLESH KUMAR GAUTAM S/O RAJESHWARI
                                PRASAD GAUTAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT
                                DHAKRA R/O VILLAGE DHAKRA POLICE STATION
                                SUHAGI TEHSIL TYONTHAR DISTRICT REWA M.P.
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MUNNI DEVI W/O RAMPATI, AGED ABOUT 57
                                Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SARPANCH  GRAM
                                PANCHAYAT DHAKRA VILLAGE DHAKRA P.S.
                                SUHAGI TEHSIL TEONTHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    ARVIND UPADHYAY S/O SHRI RAMPRASSANA
                                UPADHYAYA,   AGED   ABOUT   38     YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER SONORI P.S. SUHAGI
                                TEHSIL TYONTHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI RAHUL MISHRA-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 )
                          (BY SHRI ARUNDAYA SINGH-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

                                This application coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL
                          NAGU passed the following:
                                                         ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MRS. LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 1/6/2023 5:05:21 PM

The petitioner, Special Police Establishment has assailed the acquittal of respondents No.1 & 2 from the charges under sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of IPC and respondent No.3 from the charges under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC vide judgment dated 18.11.2021 delivered in Special Case No.LOK/04/2018 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Rewa, District Rewa.

2- The allegation was that respondents No.1 & 2 who were Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Dhakhra engaged 3 persons viz. Vishwanath Kol, Lallan Kol and Genda Lal Basor in MANREGA but didn't pay their wages.

3- The trial Court observed that neither the fact that the aforesaid persons

were engaged nor that any wages were due towards them could be proved by producing their job card which they were admittedly having with them. It was further observed that the cheque of Rs.76,824/- issued in favour of and encashed by third respondent Arvind Upadhyaya was not fabricated, and that it was issued against payment of building material supplied by him.

4- Nothing contrary could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5- After going through paragraph 28, 29, 32 of the impugned judgment and also the statements of the complainant and other victims alongwith the statement of I.O. Ashok Kumar Pandey PW-11 and Bank Manager Ashok Singh PW-10 and other witnesses and also Ex.P/46 and other documents, we do not find any fault with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

6- Shri Agrawal arguing for the petitioner referred to the statement of respondents No.1-Kamlesh Kumar Gautam & respondent No.2- Munni Devi recorded during inquiry conducted prior to registration of the crime and proved

Signature Not Verified as Ex.P/37 and P/38 wherein they both have admitted that they had issued a Signed by: MRS. LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 1/6/2023 5:05:21 PM

cheque of Rs.76,824/- for payment of wages along with a list of labourers to whom payment was to be made. He submitted that this admission makes the respondents liable for the alleged misconduct and proves the charges levelled against them. The trial Court has not discussed them in the impugned judgment, therefore, according to him, a case for granting leave is made out.

7- But the learned counsel could not reply the query as to how these statements can be relied upon to hold the charges proved or to hold the respondent guilty of the offences charged with particularly when in paragraph 6 of cross-examination CEO Manish Bagri PW-9 has admitted that he never inquired from respondents No.1 and 2 and never got their statements recorded. In our considered opinion in such a situation, these statement cannot be acted upon.

8- Thus, we find no merits in the petition. Therefore, leave is denied and the petition is dismissed accordingly.

                             (SHEEL NAGU)                                              (VIRENDER SINGH)
                                 JUDGE                                                      JUDGE
                          Loretta




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MRS. LORETTA
RAJ
Signing time: 1/6/2023
5:05:21 PM