Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Singh Chauhan vs Special Police Establishment ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
(1) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 687 of 2022
V.K. SHARMA
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKTA)
ORGANIZATION MP
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1437 of 2022
AJIT KUMAR JAIN
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKT)
ORGANIZATION MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Kishor Singh Jadoun, learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 8/12/2024
4:34:25 PM
(2) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1442 of 2022
V K SHARMA
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKTA)
ORGANIZATION MP
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1626 of 2022
U.S. MISHRA
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKTA)
ORGANIZATION MP
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2101 of 2022
BUDDHPAL SINGH JADON
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 8/12/2024
4:34:25 PM
(3) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKT)
ORGANIZATION MP
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Gupta learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2106 of 2022
ANIL SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKT)
ORGANIZATION MP
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Gupta learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2108 of 2022
JAY SINGH KUSHWAHA
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKT)
ORGANIZATION MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukt.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 8/12/2024
4:34:25 PM
(4) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
All the above Criminal Revisions are arising out of the same
controversy hence all are being decided by this common order.
2. Cr.R. No.687/2022 has been filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of CrP.C. against the order dt.28.10.2021 passed
by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Gwalior in
SST No.02/2019, whereby the application seeking discharge has
been rejected, whereas Cr.R.1442/2022 has been filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of CrP.C. challenging the order
dt.24.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act) Gwalior in SST No.02/2019, whereby charges have
been framed against the applicant under Section 120B of IPC and
Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read
with Section 120B of IPC.
3. All the accused in Special Sessions Trial No.2/2019
pending before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)
are facing trial under Section 13 (1)(d), 13 (2), 15 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of IPC.
4. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
(5) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
(i) On 15.04.2019 estimate for the work called "strengthening
of road from Motijheel to Tighra of Rs.6.28 Cr. was prepared. For
the aforesaid work, the crust design for the work was prepared by
Engineering Consultancy Services Gwalior and presented to the
Executive Engineer. In the said report, sub base 310 mm, W.M.M.
250 mm, D.B.M. 150 mm and SDBC 30 to 40 mm measurements
were taken into consideration for the work in question. The
technical approval was given to the original estimate on 03.01.2011.
Thereafter, the administrative approval of the original estimate was
given on 03.02.2011 by the then C.E.O. Shri Jay Singh Kushwah.
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 21.02.2011. The work
order was issued on 05.05.2011 to the contractor M/s Prestigious
Scores Private Ltd. through its director Buddhpal Singh Jadon
(hereinafter recorded as the contractor) by U.S. Mishra, the then
Executive Engineer.
(ii) The contractor wrote a letter dated 02.11.2011 to the
Executive Engineer U.S. Mishra Executive Engineer seeking
approval for 190 mm scarifying (4 layers of 50 mm each) in place
of 50 mm scarifying as per the original contract. Shri Mishra
granted the approval which caused a heavy financial burden on the
State Government. Thereafter, the contractor submitted running
(6) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
bills 1 to 15 and all were approved by the accused persons from
time to time. A complaint was made that initially when the work
order was given to the contractor, the provision was made only for
scarifying for 50 mm bitumen road in one layer. Later on, at the
request of the contractor, it was changed to 190 mm scarifying by
the engineers without consulting their superior officers. The cost of
scarifying was taken at Rs.120/sq. mt., which had already been
amended in 2009 M.P. P.W.D. Manual at Rs. 15.50 sq. mt. Despite
the aforesaid change, all the bills were prepared and paid to the
contractor.
(iii) After the complaint, a technical report was obtained by
the experts. After examining all the records and roles of all the
accused persons, a conclusion has been given that the estimated cost
of work was Rs.18,90,000/- but the amount was paid Rs.78,88,280/.
According to the terms and conditions of the contract, a security
deposit of 5% from each bill was required to be deducted during the
payment to the contractor, which was not done and caused a
pecuniary gain of Rs.25,14,891/- to the contractor.
(iv) After considering the technical report, further
investigation was done by I.O. Rajeev Gupta who found the
criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct punishable under
(7) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
Section 120B of IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) and Section 13 (2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. Instead of scarifying 190 mm
(three layers of 50 mm each and 4th layer of 40 mm) and paying the
amount of Rs.78,88,280/-, the entire road would have been
reconstructed after dismantling the existing road.
(v) After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
an FIR was registered on 25.05.2017 at Lokayukta Police Station
under Section 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and under Section 120B of the IPC against 14 accused persons;
namely, Ajeet Kumar Jain, S.K.Shrivastava, Anil Singh Chauhan,
M.K.Agrawal, Arun Shukla, B.B.Mathur, D.D.Mishra, U.S.Mishra,
G.N.Singh, M.P.Patel, B.K.Sharma, Aditya Singh Tomar, Jay Singh
Kushwah and Buddhpal Singh Jadon, Director of M/s Prestigious
Scores Pvt. Ltd.
(vi) Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
filed before the Special Judge. Before framing the charges, the
applicants filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking
discharge by all the applicants. However, vide order dt.28.10.2021,
the learned Special Judge has rejected the application and thereafter
framed the charges. Hence, M.Cr.C.No.687/2002 has been filed.
(8) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
5. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the
applicants seeks withdrawal of Cr.R.No.2108/2022, Cr.R.No.
1437/2022, Cr.R.No.2101/2022, Cr.R.No.1626/2022 and CR.No.
2106/2022 filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrP.C. with liberty to raise all possible defence before the trial
court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant -V.K. Sharma
submits that the applicant has wrongly been added as an accused in
this case. He was appointed as Joint Director of Town and Country
Planning. He was given the additional charge of C.E.O. SADA
Gwalior from 12.07.2012 to 17.09.012 and thereafter from
15.01.2015 to 25.09.2015. During his tenure, only the 11th and 15th
bills were paid to the contractor in respect of the aforesaid work.
11th bill was only 0.84% of the total work. The allegation against
him is that he did not examine bills No.1 to 10 before clearing bill
No.11, which was not his duty to examine the earlier bill. So far as
the allegation that the 15th bill got passed by putting pressure on
subordinate officers is concerned, the same is also unfounded
because the said bill was passed on the direction given by the
Lokayukt. After due verification by the Site Engineer, Executing
Officer, and Accounting Officer the same was presented before the
(9) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
applicant and the same was paid on 26.10.2015 just immediately
after posting on 25.09.2015. During his tenure, neither the contract
was awarded nor any changes were made in the work order to cause
the loss to the government. The CEO is not in charge of the
construction of work. Therefore, he is liable to be discharged from
all the charges. After the impugned order, charges were framed,
which the applicant challenged by way of filing
Cr.R.No.1442/2022.
7. Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that as per the report submitted by the Technical
Officers as well as the Lokayukt, right from preparing the estimate
and awarding the contract till payment of the 15th bill, the
involvement of all the engineers, accounts officer, CEO was found
and accordingly all have been made accused with the aid of Section
120B of IPC. During the pendency of the petition, 11th and 15th no.
bills were paid, therefore, at this stage, he alone could not be
removed from the array of accused persons when the roles
attributable to the accused persons are interlinked and they all are
accused with the aid of Section 120B of IPC i.e. criminal
conspiracy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the
learned Special Judge has examined the scope of 227 of Cr.P.C. on
(10) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI (2019) 9 SCC 368, Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal and another (1979) 3 SCC 4, CBI Vs. Dr.
Anup Kumar Shrivastava, AIR 2017 SC 3698 rightly dismissed the
application. Now, the trial has begun, and evidence has been started,
therefore, it is not an appropriate stage to discharge this applicant
alone especially when other accused persons have withdrawn their
revised petitions and facing the trial.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and perused the record of the case
8. It is correct that the scope of interference with the order
passed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the power of this court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of quashment of FIR is very
limited. Apex Court in the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another [SLP (CRI) No. 1500 of 2024]
reported in 2024 INSC 583 has held as under:-
15. This Court in a series of judgments has held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High
Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. A
profitable reference can be made to the judgment in
the case of CBI Vs. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online
SC 379). Relevant paragraph from the judgment is
extracted here under :
(11) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
"Para 10....As per the cardinal principle of law,
at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the
criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider
"whether any sufficient material is available to
proceed further against the accused for which
the accused is required to be tried or not."
9. Thus, the court cannot conduct the mini-trial. The court is
only required to see that on the basis of the allegations levelled in
the charge sheet and the material collected by the prosecution
agency, prima facie the case against the accused person said to have
been made out. Where the material placed before the court discloses
grave suspicion against the accused, the court will frame the
charges and proceed with the trial. At the time of framing of
charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into. Specially in the cases of trial under the provision of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, where there are several accused
arrayed with the aid of Section 120B, one of the accused cannot be
discharged by examining his singular conduct at the stage of
framing of charges. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for the
prosecution to complete the chain of events with the role
(12) CRR No.687/2022, 1437/2022, 1442/2022,
1626/2022, 2101/2022, 2106/2022 & 2108/2022.
attributable to each and every accused assigned in the charge
sheet. Any adverse findings or observations on the merit of the case
given by this court on the merit of the case would affect the trial of
all these applicants before the Special Judge.
In view of the above, no case for interference by this court is
made out and accordingly, Cr.R.No.687/2022 and Cr.R.No.
1442/2022 stand dismissed.
10. Cr.R.No.2108/2022, Cr.R.No.1437/2022, Cr.R.
No.2101/2022, Cr.R.No.1626/2022 and CR.No2106/2022 are
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
A copy of this order be retained in all the connected Criminal
Revisions.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
