Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Singh Bhandari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.6015 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
SURENDRA SINGH BHANDARI, S/O LATE
SHRI GHUPAL SINGH BHANDARI, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
(RETIRED), SCHEDULED CASTE & TRIBAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, PRESENT
ADDRESS H.NO. TULIP 326, RUCHI LIFE
SCAPE JAT KHEDI, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,
BHOPAL (M.P.) TEMPORARY ADDRESS E
7/23, 4 IMLI, BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI K. C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI MANOJ
KUMAR RAJAK- ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
POLICE STATION ECONOMIC OFFENCE
WING, BHOPAL
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 15/05/2024
Passed on : 21/05/2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Criminal Revision having been heard and reserved for order,
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 21-05-2024
18:58:12
2
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being
aggrieved by the order dated 14/10/2023 and 16/10/2023 passed by
learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal (M.P.)
in Special Sessions Trial No.3/2017, whereby learned Special Judge
framed charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 409 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and
Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that under the Special Central
Assistance Scheme of the Government of India, every year the fund
has been provided to the Finance & Development Corporation for
orientation training programme and to provide employment to the
economically weaker section and unemployed youth of Scheduled
Castes. The applicant was the Additional Director of the Scheduled
Caste & Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal. In the financial year
2008-09 and 2009-10, the applicant and other co-accused persons who
were employed in Scheduled Caste & Tribal Welfare Development
Department of Madhya Pradesh and Treasury, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal fraudulently and conspiratorially forged the documents and
withdrew a sum of Rs. Seven Crores in the departmental budget for the
financial year 2008-09 and irregularly distributed an amount of Rs.72
lakh. Similarly, in the financial year 2009-10 under the Scheme
No.0538 out of the amount of Rs.7.60 crores the applicant and other
co-accused persons withdrew Rs.1,21,94,185/- (One crore twenty one
lakhs ninety four thousand one hundred eighty five) twice without any
approval. Thus, applicant Surendra Singh Bhandari alongwith other co-
accused persons obtained illegal benefits by misusing their position.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant
submitted that prior to institution of present FIR, two FIR with regard
to present offence were registered in the year 2012 and 2021, but in
both the FIR the name of applicant was not mentioned. It is submitted
that in the third FIR which was lodged on 06/10/2021 for the first time
the name of applicant was mentioned. It is submitted that challan in
respect of 8 accused persons was filed in November, 2017, against
three accused persons on 06/12/2021 and against present applicant the
supplementary challan was filed on 19/01/2023. It is submitted that the
FIR and investigation report submitted by EOW does not disclose any
offence against applicant and applicant is in no manner connected with
alleged offence. Though, the learned Special Judge, (Prevention of
Corrupion Act), Bhopal by the impugned order framed the charges
against the applicant holding that the applicant without any authority
has countersigned and forged bills for an amount of Rs.72,00,000/-
(Seventy two lakhs), which was paid to the persons concerned in an
illegal manner and thus the applicant had entered into criminal
conspiracy with the accused persons namely Suresh Thapak, G.N.
Saxena, Shravan Kumar Bamankar, Nitin Jethani, Prakash Asudani,
Kavita Jethani, Kishore Thawani, Anita Batham, Anil Paul
Ghantarwar, Bhawan Bheekh, Rajendra Sharma and Manohar
Tekwani, but applicant is not in any manner connected with the
payment made to Suresh Thapak, G.N. Saxena, Shravan Kumar
Bamankar, Nitin Jethani, Prakash Asudani, Kavita Jethani, Kishore
Thawani, Anita Batham, Anil Paul Ghantarwar, Bhawan Bheekh,
Rajendra Sharma and Manohar Tekwani and applicant has not assisted
with any payment made to the persons. It is further submitted that no
bills relating to payment to the said persons were brought for counter
sign before the applicant, hence allegation that the applicant entered
into criminal conspiracy to facilitate the aforesaid persons is wholly
unfounded on the face of record, so the charge against the applicant is
unsustainable. Learned counsel further submitted that in the
departmental enquiry no punishment or sentence has been imposed on
the applicant, so no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the
applicant. In this regard learned senior counsel placed reliance on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,
CBI & Another, (2020) 9 SCC 636. On the strength of aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned orders
dated 14/10/2023 and 16/10/2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal (M.P.) in Special Sessions
Trial No.3/2017 and discharge the applicant from the aforesaid
offences.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-EOW drew the
attention of this Court towards Para Nos.18.10, 18.11, 18.12 and 18.13
of the final report (supplementary charge-sheet) filed against the
applicant. It is submitted that the applicant was Officer-In-Charge of
Account Section and he had verified the cash book as 'true', which
shows his involvement in the offence. It is also submitted that in the
departmental enquiry the applicant was not completely exonerated
from the charges, but he was admonished. Learned counsel further
submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant, hence
prays for dismissal of petition.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, perused the material available on record and gone
through the citation upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel
for applicant.
6. A perusal of charge-sheet reflects that it is not a case where
prima facie material against the applicant is not available on record. In
the departmental enquiry it was found against the applicant that "the
applicant was also Officer-In-Charge of the Account Section and work
relating to Account Section was also allotted to him. In the enquiry it
was found that an amount of Rs.72,00,000/- (Seventy two lakhs) was
illegally disbursed, which comes under the purview of
misappropriation and embezzlement. As the applicant was Officer-In-
Charge of the Account Section, therefore, it was incumbent upon him
to have informed immediately the Accountant General, but he did not
do so. The applicant alongwith other officials is found responsible for
lack of financial management as well as establishing financial
discipline being Officer-In-Charge of the department." Hence, in
departmental enquiry, the applicant was not exonerated completely
from the charges levelled against him, but applicant was admonished.
7. So, looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant in the
charge-sheet and the findings of departmental enquiry, the judgment
i.e. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) upon which reliance is placed
by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
8. The roving and detailed enquiry into the allegations is not
permissible at the stage of framing of charges and if there is prima
facie material available to the effect that accused might have
committed an offence, then it is sufficient to frame charge against the
accused.
9. The power under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Cr.P.C. against an order of framing charge should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
case. The Court should apply the test as to whether uncontroverted
allegation available from the record of the case and the documents,
prima facie does not establish any offence and the basic ingredients of
the offence are not satisfied, then the Court may interfere with the
order of framing of charges.
10. As discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there is sufficient material for framing of charges against the applicant.
So, there is no illegality in the orders dated 14/10/2023 and 16/10/2023
passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act),
Bhopal (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.3/2017, whereby learned
Special Judge framed charges against the applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 409 read with Section 120-
B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
11. Accordingly, the petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
12. However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any
observation on the merits of the case. The observation made herein are
solely for the purpose of disposal of this petition.
(SHEEL NAGU) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
as.
