Jagdish Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16984 MP

                                        -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT INDORE
                         CRA No. 11405 of 2023
           (JAGDISH SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-10-2023
       By Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

       By Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the

Respondent



                                  ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A.No.15184/2023, which is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant No.2-Jagmohan has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) / 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120 and Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 04 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and 03 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulations.

Prosecution story in brief:

02. In the year 2008 - 09, accused / appellant - Jagdish Sharma was posted as Collector, Jhabua, and also held the post of Coordinator under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Co-accused Jagmohan Dhurve was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Jhabua, Nathu Singh Tawar was posted as Project Officer, Jila Panchayat,

Jhabua under NREGS, Amit Dubey was posted as Project Coordinator under Samagra Swachchhta Abhiyan at Jila Panchayat, Jhabua, Sadashiv Davar was posted as Senior Accountant, Jila Panchayat, Jhabua, and Ashish Kadam was posted as Accountant, Jila Panchayat, Jhabua.

03. One Rajesh Solanki filed a private complaint case before the Special Judge alleging that these accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy in the matter of printing of Government documents, papers, registers and other stationery items from private printers namely Rahul Enterprises, Proprietor Mukesh Sharma instead of getting printed from Government Printing Press, Bhopal and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.28,04,676/- to the State Government. The total printing work amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- could have been printed from Government Press, however, payment of Rs.35,54,676/- was made to the private printer through accused - Jagdish Sharma by issuing 5 - 6 printing orders and caused the loss of Rs.28,04,676/-. Likewise for Swachchhta Mission, instead of Rs.2,00,000/-, the work of Rs.10,92,000/- was illegally given to Rahul Enterprises and caused the loss of Rs.4,85,160/-.

04. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and the order passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Special Police Establishment, Indore conducted a preliminary inquiry, and thereafter, filed a charge sheet under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. Act & Sections 120-B & 420 of the IPC against these appellants, A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt, Deputy Controllers posted in Government Printing Press at that relevant point in time. All the accused denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution examined 34 witnesses and exhibited 55 articles. After conducting a detailed trial, vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2023, A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt, Deputy Controllers have been acquitted and the present appellant

and other co-accused convicted for the aforementioned offenses. Hence, this appeal is before this Court along with application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Submission of the Parties

05. Learned Senior Counsel / counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was posted in the Panchayats of District - Jhabua. Appellant and other co-accused sent a requisition to the Government Printing Press for printing of stationary like registers, forms, etc. A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt both were posted as Deputy Controller. The printing orders were issued to Rahul Printers. The printing materials and three bills were sent to the Collector, Jhabua for payment duly signed by Deputy Controllers. Bills No.53, 54, 34 & and 35 were not forged by the appellant, and out of which only three bills were exhibited as Exhibits-P/34, P/35 & P/36. The then Deputy Controller verified and certified those bills and forwarded them to the Collectorate, Jhabua. Order No.3706 / G.B. Steno / V - 56 / 59 dated 25.11.2009 was produced before the trial Court to establish that there is a provision for printing of Government material from private printers, therefore, it is not mandatory for every Government Office to get the printing work done through Government Printing Press. The printing expenses were incurred within the budget allocated to the Department. The two accused persons namely A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt, who verified the bills and forwarded them for payment to Office of Collectorate, District - Jhabua have been acquitted. Had they taken an objection and not recommended payment, the payment would not have been made by the appellant. The signatures of Deputy Controllers were not got verified by the handwriting expert in those exhibits i.e. Exhibits-P/34, P/35 & P/36. It was the duty of the prosecution to call the hand-writing experts in the

Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that except co-accused

- Mukesh Sharma, none of the accused have been convicted for the offense punishable under Section 467 of the IPC as they never forged the bills (Exhibits-P/34, P/35 & P/36) for payment and caused loss to the Government. In paragraph - 41 of the judgment, the learned Special Judge has found that no steps were taken to get the signatures of A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt verified by hand-writing experts and these three bills were presented before the Janpad Panchayat for payment and the rest of the bills were not produced before the trial Court, therefore, the conviction is bad in law, especially when A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt have been acquitted. It is important to take note that original Ex-P/34, P/35 & P/36 were not produced before the trial Court and photocopies of the same have been accepted. The appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty of bail granted to him. Even during the investigation, the appellant was never arrested by the Special Police Establishment. This is the appeal of the year 2023 and a final hearing of the same is not possible in the near future. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that at the relevant time, the minimum sentence under the P.C. Act was only one year, hence, the punishment of 4 years is highly excessive. Thus, the remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.

06. Learned counsel for the respondent / SPE opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that a detailed investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer - G.D. Sharma (P.W-28) and after appreciating the evidence, the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant and co-accused persons. These three bills i.e. Ex-P/34, P/35 & P/36 were not sent through Government Printing Press to the appellant as they were directly presented by Rahul Printers to the office of Jila Panchayat and

Janpad Panchayat for payment, hence, the Deputy Controllers have been acquitted. Though the appellant was on bail during the trial, now the charges are found proven against him, hence, he is liable to be remained in jail.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

08. Admittedly, the payments were made on the basis of bills Ex-P/34, P/35 and P/36 and the original bills were not presented before the Court. In paragraph - 41 of the judgment, the Special Judge held that the prosecution has not submitted any hand-writing expert's report to prove that the signatures of A.K. Khanduri and Devdutt on these bills are forged. The appellant has made the payment on the basis of the signatures of these two Deputy Controllers of the Government Printing Press. He had no reason to believe that these bills were verified by the competent authority, and accordingly, payments were made. Prima facie printing work was done by Mukesh Sharma, Proprietor of Rahul Printers at Bhopal and printed materials were supplied to the respective offices and Janpad Panchayat at Jhabua. The appellant sent a requisition for printing to the Government Printing Press. It is not the case of the prosecution that printed material was not supplied by Rahul Printers or there is a complete ban on the printing of Government stationery from private printers. Excess payment to the private printers could have been recovered by the procedure established under the law.

09. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and limited prima facie above observation the appellant has made out the case for suspension of the jail sentences. The facts remain that the final hearing of these appeals is not possible in the near future, I deem it proper to suspend

the remaining jail sentence of these appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.15184/2023 is allowed.

10. The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 - Jagmohan is hereby suspended and it is ordered that this appellant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with separate surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard during the pendency of these appeals.

List the appeal for the final hearing in due course.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Date: 2023.10.12 16:39:05 +05'30'