[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurabh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1979 of 2025
SAURABH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ankur Maheshwari with Shri Dharmvir Singh Parihar - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - GA appearing for State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.03.2026
ORDER PASSED ON : 25/03/2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as "Cr.P.C."), challenging the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1)
passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District
Morena, in Session Trial No. 313/2016, whereby the application filed
by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the State Government operates a
wheat procurement scheme through cooperative societies at the
Minimum Support Price (MSP). Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Saithra Aheer/
Brahatarkar Cooperative Society, Saithra Tehsil Porsa, District
Morena, was one such society, managed by accused Shivraj Singh
Tomar as its Secretary/Manager.
4. On 11.06.2014, one Ramveer Sharma filed a complaint with the
District Collector, Morena, and other authorities, alleging serious
infirmities in the wheat procurement, alleging that the manager of Sewa
Sahkari Sanstha Saithra Aheer/Brahatarkar Cooperative Society,
Saithra Tehsil Porsa, Shivraj Singh Tomar had illegally enrolled
ineligible persons, including his own family members and outsiders
who were not actual cultivators of land within the society's service area,
and had caused fraudulent registration of such persons to divert the
benefits of the Government's wheat procurement scheme to them.
5. The said complaint was enquired into by the Junior Civil Supply
Officer, Porsa, and on the basis of said enquiry and subsequent
investigation, an FIR was registered on 26.05.2014 as Crime No.
262/2014 at Police Station Porsa, District Morena, for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC"). After investigation, the
police filed a charge-sheet (Annexure-P/2) before the competent
Magistrate implicating 13 accused persons, including the manager
Shivraj Singh Tomar and several alleged beneficiary farmers. The
matter was committed to the Court of Session and registered as Session
Trial No. 313/2016 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
District Morena.
6. On 15.01.2020, the prosecution filed an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court praying that the
present petitioner be arraigned as additional accused in the trial on the
ground that it clearly establishes the active role of the petitioner in the
preparation and certification of forged farmer lists, which formed the
foundation of the fraudulent wheat procurement and that he was,
therefore, liable to be tried along with the existing accused for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The similar application was
also filed by the prosecution u/s 319 of Cr.P.C on 25.02.2020 praying to
arraign Jandel Singh Tomar (Revenue Inspector) as additional accused
in the Trial.
7. The petitioner filed the reply to the said application on
05.03.2020, denying the allegations and contending that the list was
prepared by the Saithra Ahir Society on the basis of which wheat was
procured and no forged document was created by him. The learned
Sessions Court, vide the impugned order dated 03.04.2025, allowed the
prosecution's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present
criminal revision against the said order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:-
(I) The impugned order is contrary to the evidence on
record and is bad in law. The only allegation against the
Petitioner is that, as a Patwari of Jal Ka Nagra, he verified the
list of farmers. Such verification alone does not prima facie
establish any offence of cheating or forgery under the IPC.
(ii) The Petitioner has not made or created any forged
document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. Mere
verification or authentication of a list prepared and forwarded
by the society does not amount to fabrication of a false
document. Therefore, offences under Sections 467, 468, and
471 IPC are not made out against the Petitioner.
(iii) As per the Government's wheat procurement policy, no
independent duty was assigned to the Patwari, and his role
was limited to certifying land details of farmers within his
Halka.
(iv) The Petitioner, being Patwari of Jal Ka Nagra only,
certified the list of farmers whose land was located within his
Halka. The list Exhibits P-2 to P-28 contains farmers from
multiple villages and the petitioner could not have, and did
not, certify entries pertaining to villages outside his Halka.
The learned Sessions Court ignored this material distinction.
(v) The standard of summoning an additional accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC
92, is higher than mere framing of charge. In the present case,
no such higher threshold has been crossed.
(vi) The offences, if any, amount to a civil wrong and not a
criminal one. The Petitioner was not benefited from the
scheme and had no motive to participate in any fraud.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
the Petitioner, as a public servant holding a post of trust, certified the
fraudulent list, which was the very foundation of the procurement
fraud. Multiple witnesses have consistently deposed that the lists
bearing the Petitioner's signature (Exhibit P-2 to P-28) was the sole
basis for wheat procurement. The Petitioner was in a position to know,
from his revenue records, whether the persons named in the list were
genuine cultivators of land within his Halka. The certification by the
Petitioner of a list containing ineligible persons directly facilitated the
commission of the fraud and the evidence reveals a prima facie case,
indeed more than prima facie case against him. Hence he prayed for
dismissal of the present revision.
10. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
11. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, by the
detailed order dated 03.04.2025, allowed the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. The salient findings of the Session Court may be
summarised as follows:
(I) Multiple witnesses had deposed that wheat procurement
was conducted only on the basis of the certified lists prepared
and authenticated by the local Patwari, and those lists bore the
Petitioner's signatures;
(ii) The evidence established that ineligible persons and
outsiders were enrolled as farmers and their names inserted in
the certified lists.
(iii) Relying on the circular dated 20.03.2009 of the MP
Government, the Court noted that under the applicable
scheme, the Patwari was required to provide a certificate
proving the cultivator's land details before the purchase could
be made;
(iv) The evidence of multiple witnesses collectively
establish that the lists (Exhibits P-2 to P-28) were prepared
with the active participation and certification of the Petitioner
and others.
12. The law on Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been well settled by the
Constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh
v. State of Punjab (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
para 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19, inter-alia, as follows:-
"8.The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and
21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective
umbrella for the smooth administration of justice
making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and
efficacious trial so that the accused does not get
prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try
him for the offence but at the same time also gives
equal protection to victims and to society at large to
ensure that the guilty does not get away from the
clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to
ensure that the criminal administration of justice works
properly, the law was appropriately codified and
modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to
how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately
find out the truth so that an innocent does not get
punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to
book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined
under the Constitution and our laws that have led to
several decisions, whereby innovating methods and
progressive tools have been forged to find out the real
truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go
unpunished.
9.The presumption of innocence is the general law of
the land as every man is presumed to be innocent
unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain
statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of
offences have been raised against the accused whereby
the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused
discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon
him under the law to prove himself to be innocent.
These competing theories have been kept in mind by the
legislature. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow
the real perpetrator of an offence to get away
unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in our
opinion, in order to achieve this very end that the
legislature thought of incorporating provisions of
Section 319 CrPC. It is with the said object in mind
that a constructive and purposive interpretation should
be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does
not dilute the intention of the statute conferring powers
on the court to carry out the abovementioned avowed
object and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction
of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the
offence that is the subject-matter of trial.
***
***
12.Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned
when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used
as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the
spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC.
13.It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing
the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any
reason does not array one of the real culprits as an
accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said
accused to face trial. The question remains under what
circumstances and at what stage should the court
exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319
CrPC?
***
***
***
***
18.The legislature cannot be presumed to have
imagined all the circumstances and, therefore, it is the
duty of the court to give full effect to the words used by
the legislature so as to encompass any situation which
the court may have to tackle while proceeding to try an
offence and not allow a person who deserves to be tried
to go scot-free by being not arraigned in the trial in
spite of the possibility of his complicity which can be
gathered from the documents presented by the
prosecution.
19.The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty
is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore,
it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the courts in our criminal justice system
where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at
times, get away by manipulating the investigating
and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial
is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to
get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation
or inquiry even though he may be connected with the
commission of the offence."
.....Emphasis supplied
13. As per the law declared by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court "The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth
administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair
and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after
the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence, but at the
same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large
to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. It is
the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where
the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real
culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said
accused to face trial.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in para 106 as
under:-
"106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie
case is to be established from the evidence led before
the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-
examination, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to
be applied is one which is more than prima facie case
as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short
of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section
319 CrPC the purpose of providing if "it appears from
the evidence that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence" is clear from the words "for
which such person could be tried together with the
accused". The words used are not "for which such
person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no
scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to
form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
15. The Court further held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power, which should be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of
the case so demand.
16. The moot question in the present case is whether the evidence
adduced during the trial at the stage when the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. was moved, discloses sufficient material of the degree to
warrant summoning the Petitioner as an additional accused?
17. This Court answers the aforesaid question in affirmative for the
following reasons:-
(I) The evidence of multiple prosecution witnesses is
consistent and unequivocal on the point that wheat
procurement was made exclusively on the basis of the
certified lists of farmers and that such lists bore the signatures
of the Patwari. PW-3 (Jandel Singh) specifically deposed that
the society manager brought the registration list, which had
been certified by Mauza Patwari Saurabh Sharma (Petitioner
herein) and it was on the basis of that certified list that he
authenticated the procurement. The Government's policy
circular also stipulates that where Khasra (B-1) documents of
cultivators are not available, the Patwari's certificate
regarding land details is mandatory before procurement. The
Petitioner's certification was thus not a ministerial formality, it
was a foundational act that conferred legal legitimacy upon
the procurement.
(ii) The evidence reveals a consistent picture that the certified
farmer lists (Exhibit P- 2 to P-28) contained names of persons
who were not actual cultivators or who were ineligible for the
MSP scheme. PW-8 (Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi), the
investigating Junior Civil Supply Officer) specifically
deposed that his inquiry report found that fictitious/ineligible
persons, including bataidars without agreements, had been
enrolled, and that the certified lists contained the names of
family members of the society manager and outsiders. The
Petitioner, as the Mauza Patwari, was custodian of the land
records of his Halka and was the very person whose
professional function required him to verify whether the listed
person were genuine cultivators.
(iii) The Petitioner's primary defence is that he certified only
the entries of farmers whose land was located in Jal Ka Nagra
(his Halka) and that the list Exhibit P-2 to P- 28 contains
entries from multiple villages outside his Halka, which he did
not and could not certify. This is a defence that goes to the
merits of the case and requires an appreciation of the
documentary evidence, particularly a comparison between
Exhibits P-2 to P-28 and the Halka-wise revenue records, at
full trial. It cannot be accepted or rejected at the stage of
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court has to be prima facie satisfied
that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction.
The Petitioner's signatures are admittedly present on the
certified lists and the question of what those signatures signify
or how they came to be there is precisely a question for the
trial.
(iv) The submission that the matter involves only a civil
wrong is untenable. However, if the Petitioner certified a list
as correct knowing that it contained names of ineligible
persons or by failing to exercise the diligence required of him
as a public officer, such conduct would prima facie bring him
within the criminal offence. The authentication of a
fraudulent list by a revenue official empowers the fraud
perpetrated on the Government. Obtaining Government funds
through fraud perpetrated by falsely certifying beneficiary list
to divert MSP benefits to ineligible persons constitutes, prima
facie, the criminal act and cannot be characterized as mere
civil wrongs. Whether the Petitioner's act of certification
amounts to 'making a false document' is a question of fact and
law to be decided by the Trial Court after appreciation of
evidence at trial.
18. The Petitioner has placed reliance on Hardeep Singh (supra) and
submitted that the standard of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than
framing of charge and that the evidence does not cross this threshold in
his case. This Court is not persuaded by this submission. The
Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) held that the test is
whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction. The
multiple prosecution witnesses consistently implicating the Petitioner's
certified signatures on the very lists that formed the basis of the
fraudulent procurement, at this stage, are sufficient to cross the
threshold contemplated. The veracity of that evidence and the
Petitioner's explanation thereof are matters for trial.
19. The contention of the Petitioner that the scheme assigns no role
to the Patwari in the procurement process and that he was therefore
wrongly implicated has been considered. However, as the impugned
order correctly records the Government policy circular specifically
contemplates the Patwari's certification when standard land documents
are unavailable. More importantly, the evidence shows that the
Petitioner's certified list was actually used as the basis for procurement.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that (i) the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Morena, under Section 319
Cr.P.C., so far as the petitioner is concerned, does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or non-application of mind.
(ii) The Petitioner's defences on the merits, regarding jurisdictional
limits of his Halka, lack of mens rea, and the role assigned to Patwaris
under the scheme, are matters that are to be agitated before and
adjudicated by the learned Sessions Court at the stage of trial. (iii) This
Court finds no compelling ground to interfere with the discretionary
order of the Sessions Court in the exercise of revisional or inherent
jurisdiction.
21. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.
22. It is, however, made clear that all observations made in this order
are confined to the determination of the present revision and shall not
be construed as a final expression of opinion on the guilt or innocence
of the Petitioner. The learned Sessions Court shall decide Session Trial
No. 313/2016 on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made
in this order.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
chandni* JUDGE
CHAND Digitally signed by CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
NI
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b5abcc1
b4614d98feabd8b78228e0ec6eab9a
0bd4e622c09, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
NARWA
GWALIOR,CID - 7022823,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa43d199
76f07886865f6fac4a246eee6bccd256
RIYA
acdfce3dcf944f, cn=CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Date: 2026.03.25 17:10:18 +05'30'
