Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 251 (CHH)

Lalaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

2003-12-19

FAKHRUDDIN

body2003
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. The present is a case where the paddy meant for drought relief has been diverted and misappropriated by the accused persons frustrating the benevolent schemes of the Government. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that 260 rice bags were loaded from F.C.I. godown for distributing the same to the people as drought relief. The applicant is the driver of the truck bearing No. M.P.L. 2868. The paddy was loaded in the said truck and the destination was to unload the bags at Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bangursia. Instead of unloading the paddy at Village Bangursia, the truck was taken by the applicant/driver to a rice mill namely Durga Rice Mill situated at Pandaripani. When the truck was being unloaded, one Mukhbir who informed the police that the driver of the truck is unloading the drought material in the said rice mill. On receipt of this information the police rushed to the spot and caught the persons red handed and seized the material and the truck. It was found that out of 260 rice bags, 227 rice bags had been unloaded and 33 were remained in the truck. After needful an F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation was done. 3. The applicant has played a pivot role inasmuch as instead of unloading the paddy in the said Sewa Sahakari Samiti, he turned the wheels to the said rice mill. The events go to show as to how the conspiracy is hatched by the persons in respect of the relief material, which was diverted from one place to another to frustrate the beneficial schemes promulgated for drought relief. 4. The challan was filed and the learned Magistrate framed charges for an offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 109 of IPC against Prem Kumar Agrawal and under Section 407 of IPC against the present accused applicant. Section 407 of IPC is relevant and quoted below :-- 407. Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.-- Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger of warehouse keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5. Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.-- Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger of warehouse keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5. Undoubtedly, the applicant is driver of the said vehicle and he knew the fact that for what purpose the drought material was loaded from the F.C.I. godown and the destination was also well known. Here in the present case prima facie, breach of trust by carrier is there and the ingredients of Section 407 are attracted for the purpose of framing of charges. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, contended that there is no material on record. He persuaded this Court to go through the entire documents. This Court has gone through all the material and prima facie is of the opinion that the charges framed are on the basis of material on record. It is not a case where there is no evidence. On the contrary the evidence goes to show that the applicant was caught red handed and the police reached the spot and found that 227 rice bags were already unloaded from the truck and 33 bags were remained in the truck and also recorded the statements of witnesses. 7. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B, Johari, reported in 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 164 = 2000(2) MPLJ 322 and Smt. Om Wati and Anr. vs. State, through Delhi Administration and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 1507, and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari that :-- "It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, can not show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. The exercise of High Court of appreciating the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge is wholly unjustified." In the case of Smt. Om Wati (supra), it has been further held by the Supreme Court that :-- "Framing of charges against accused.-- High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing of charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons." 8. Learned Counsel for the applicant repeatedly argued that the applicant is a poor man and is a driver by profession and prays for interference of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C without any rhyme and reason. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie no case has been made out, therefore, this Court can not interfere at the initial stage of framing of charges merely on the ground that the applicant is poor man and is a driver. The interference can not be made on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons. The circumstances brought on record and the discussions made hereinabove go to show that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant/driver and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion at the initial stage that the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If this Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charge has to be framed. 9. If this Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charge has to be framed. 9. Having thus considered and further in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari (supra) and Smt. Om Wati vs. State, through Delhi Administration (supra), in the opinion of this Court, no interference is called for. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. However, it is made clear that the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs are for purposes of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the Trial Court shall proceed in the matter on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of observations made in this order. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.