Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23132
1 CRR-5598-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5598 of 2024
PAWAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Achal Pathak - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
Shri Hemant Sharma G.A appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 12.12.2023 in
ST No.16/2023 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone whereby the charges
under Section 408, 413, 414, 403 and 410 of IPC has been framed against the
revision petitioners in a case arising out Crime no.501/2022 registered at Police
Station-Maingaon, District West Nimar, Khargone.
2. Facts of the case are that the complainant's wife Jhuma Solanki, owns a
gas cylinder agency namely "Rashmi Gas Service." The agency's godown is
located in Prem Nagar Mandi, from where cylinders vehicles are loaded and
dispatched to customers. The Accounting of the cylinders was initially handled by
the godown keeper Pawan and in the evening all accounts were reviewed and
managed by one Ashutosh, the Manager. On 26.02.2022 when the complainant
visited the godown and requested the accounts for both empty and full cylinders,
he notices discrepancies between the account books and the computerized records.
This discrepancy led to a financial loss of approximately Rs.7,49,601/- for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23132
2 CRR-5598-2024
complainant and his wife. On the basis of said information, an FIR was registered
against the accused persons under Section 408, 413, 414, 403 and 410 of IPC
bearing Crime No.501/2022 at the Police Satition Maingaon, Khargone. Theeafter,
the charge-sheet was filed and the matter on put on trial and by the impugned
order dated 12.12.2023, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar,
Khargone has framed the charged against the revision petitioners.
3. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that charges under
Section 413 of IPC has been framed without adverting to the fact that there is no
previous conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 411 of the IPC.
4. Heard.
5. Perused the record.
6. Counsel for the State has opposed by the prayer by submitting that though
there is no previous conviction under Section 411 of IPC but s report has
submitted under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. mentioning that both the revision
petitioner/accused who are employee at "Rashmi Gas Services" Khargone were
committing the act of misappropriation of the Gas cylinders continuously from a
sufficient long period. Hence, the standard of great suspicion for framing of
charges is satisfied regarding the offence under Section 413 of IPC.
7. In the case of Kallu @ Sanjay Soni vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh vide
order dated 26.08.2015 passed in CRR No.1538/2015, the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court relying upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs. Waman Narayan
Geeya and ors., 2007 Cr.L.J. 3614 and Kotta Gopinarayan Choudhary vs. State of
Orissa, 2003 Cri.L.J. 4050 had held that the charges under Section 413 of IPC is
not sustainable unless the accused had been previously been convicted for
commission of office under Section 411 of the IPC.
8. In Ajay Sethi vs. State, LAWS (DLH)-2017-8-210, Delhi High Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23132
3 CRR-5598-2024
held that in the absence of a conviction, a conviction under Section 413 of IPC
would be unjustifiable.
9. In the present case also, there is no material filed with the charge-sheet
which may go on to suggest that it dealt with stolen property on any previous
occasions. In the aforesaid circumstances, the charges under Section 413 of IPC is
not sustainable against the revision petitioners for the same reasons. Consequently,
this criminal revision is partly allowed and the charges framed under Section 413
of IPC against the revision petitioners is quashed in this case. However, the
learned trial Court is directed to examine whether the charge under Section 411 of
IPC is made out against the revision petitioners and proceed accordingly.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
