Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 484 (RAJ)

Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2003-04-02

O.P.BISHNOI

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by Gopal Singh against whom a challan under Section 420, 467. 468 and 120-B of the IPC was filed in the court of the teamed Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol District Udaipur. The said court heard the arguments on charge and found that there was no evidence against the petitioner and consequently, discharged him in respect of the said offences. 2. The State preferred a revision petition, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Udaipur on 21.10.2002. The revision petition was allowed and it was ordered that charges for the said offences be framed against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has to preferred this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I find that the impugned order dated 21.10.2002 is unsustainable and the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 4. In the year 1996, famine conditions were prevailing and various NGOs were entrusted with the work of distribution of fodder amongst the needy people. In the area falling under the police station, Kotra, Dalit Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur) was associated with the work of distribution of fodder. Certain payments were withdrawn by the President of the said Dalit Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur) and subsequently, there were complaints to the effect that forged vouchers were prepared and money was received by the co-accused Bhairav Singh who happened to be the President of Dalit Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur). Challan was filed against Gopal Singh and Bhairav Singh both. Gopal Singh, the petitioner happened to be Patwari of the area at the relevant time. The case against him in nut-shelt, was that he verified the vouchers and hence, was in league with Bnairav Singh. 5. The learned trial court heard the arguments and found that there was no evidence against Gopal Singh, The said BhairaV Singh. in the meanwhile, had died. Gopal Singh was discharge as pointed out earlier. The revision petition filed by the State was allowed by the said court vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2002. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I find that there was no material to frame charges against the petitioner. Gopal Singh was discharge as pointed out earlier. The revision petition filed by the State was allowed by the said court vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2002. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I find that there was no material to frame charges against the petitioner. There was no document to show that Gopal Singh was entrusted with the work of distribution of fodder in any manner. It is worth-while to mention here that a departmental enquiry was held in this respect and the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 23.1.2002 Is exonerated the petitioner and found that he was not at all answerable for the distribution of fonder in question. Further it was on served that the Patwaries of the area were never instructed by the Tehsildar to supervise over the distribution of fodder. It r as found that the said Dalit Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur) was authorised to distribute fodder by the District Collector. Udaipur and no order was issue d to the effect that the Patwari of the area shall be associated with the distribution of fodder in any manner. The Dalit Sewa Sansthan. Bede (Udaipur) used to send information regarding distribution of fodder to the Tehsildar concerned from where the information was transmitted to the Collector of the District. The Patwaries of the area had no administrative control over the distribution. of fodder. It was further found. that in the instant case, Delft Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur) prepared the vouchers and the same were sent to the Tehsildar. Thereafter the concerned Patwaries were made to sign them. There was no evidence worth-the-name . that the petitioner was benefited in any manner during distribution of the fodder. The payment was received by the President of the said Dalit Sewa Sansthan, Bedla (Udaipur). 7. In view of what has been said above, it is evident that the impugned order dated 21.10.2002 is unsustainable. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned 3s order date...l" 1.10.2002 is set aside.Revision Allowed - Order of Additional Sessions Judge Directing Frame of Charge Set Aside. *******