Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of cr. P. C, seeking quashment of the proclamation dated 23. 11. 2008 (Annexure A-5) issued by Superintendent Police, Mandsaur. It is said in the proclamation that a perpetual warrant of arrest was issued on 20. 4. 2005, in furtherance to the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura dated 12. 4. 2005 in S. T. No. 91/03, offering a reward of Rs. 500/- on petitioner, payable to whom, who shall furnish the intimation of the said accused or produce him in the custody. __ ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the Police Station Bhanpura, District mandsaur registered an offence under Sections 323, 341 and 326 of IPC vide crime No. 26/95, wherein two persons were named and 50 others were unknown. After recording statements of 161 of Cr. P. C. by police eight persons were made accused, while filing challari. Out of them seven accused persons were put into trial and one person Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal had shown absconded. The Additional sessions Judge, Bhanpura passed an order in ST No. 91/2003 dated 12. 4. 2005 showing him absconding and directed to issue perpetual warrant of arrest. ( 3. ) IT is submitted that in the order of committal, the name of accused No. 8 has shown Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal, while the perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal. Petitioner by attaching the voter I. D. card issued by Election Commission and Permanent Account Number of Income Tax department, submitted that issuance of a proclamation in the name of the petitioner i. e. Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal in place of Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal is without any basis and illegal, hence liable to be quashed. ( 4. ) UNDER the orders of this Court, case diary of Crime No. 26/95 of Police station Bhanpura was called, and the record of S. T. No. 91/2003 has also been called, which is attached in the pending Criminal Appeals No. 478/05 and 498/05. On perusal of the case diary it reveals that total 8 accused persons were identified and named, against whom challan was filed as per Parcha No. 16 of the diary, on 30. 7. 2009 at Sr. No. 104. On perusal of the case diary it reveals that total 8 accused persons were identified and named, against whom challan was filed as per Parcha No. 16 of the diary, on 30. 7. 2009 at Sr. No. 104. As per case diary following persons namely Bashir S/o abdul Gani, Dhirendra S/o Narendra Saxena, Ganesh S/o Hiranand, Nimesh @ banti S/o Govind Prasad, Prakash S/o Babulal, Hukum S/o Manakchand, Ramesh s/o Ramchandra Soni and Shiv S/6 Mangilal Sethia were the accused. On filing the Challan, cognizance had taken by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanpura, and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 234/95, while the order of committal was passed on 14. 7. 2003 by Mr. Manoj Tiwari, JMFC, Bhanpura due to addition of the offence under Sections 333, 332 of IPC. On receiving the committal order, the then Sessions Judge, Mandsaur vide order dated 21. 7. 2003 made over the case S. T. No. 91/03 to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, bhanpura. In the transfer order the then Sessions Judge, Mandsaur specified the names of the accused persons including Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal and Radheshyam; whereas Sanjay and Radheshyam were not the accused of the said crime number. In the said crime number as per the case diary, Dheerendra and Bashir were the accused, but they were not shown as accused in the orders of committal, however, their case had not been made over for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura. ( 5. ) IT is surprising that the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpur Dr. J. C. Sunhere tried the accused persons, who were mentioned in the committal order and vide judgment dated 12. 4. 2005 passed in S, T. No. 91/2003, Ramesh, Prakash, Radheshyam (not the accused of Crime No, 26/95) and Hukumchan were acquitted, and the accused Ganesh and Nimesh were convicted, and directed to undergo sentence of three years R. I. each with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 332/149 and 147 of IPC. By passing a separate order on the same date Sanjay was shown as absconding, and thereafter, perpetual warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him. In furtherance to the said order, the superintendent of Police has issued the proclamation (Annexure A-5) which is impugned in this petition. ( 6. By passing a separate order on the same date Sanjay was shown as absconding, and thereafter, perpetual warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him. In furtherance to the said order, the superintendent of Police has issued the proclamation (Annexure A-5) which is impugned in this petition. ( 6. ) AFTER having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and looking to the facts contained in the case diary of Crime No. 26/95 of P. S. Bhanpura, it appears that Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal (wrongly shown as Kanwarlal in the committal order) is not the accused in the said crime number; however the then Additional Sessions Judge could not have passed the order for issuance of perpetual warrant of arrest against him, therefore, the order passed on 12. 4. 2005 for issuance of perpetual warrant against petitioner, and proclamation as issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bhanpura (Annexure A-5) dated 23. 11. 2008 is without any authority under the law. Consequently, the order dated 12. 4. 2005 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura in S. T. No. 91/2003 and the proclamation dated 23. 11. 2008 Annexure-A/5 passed by Superintendent of police, Mandsaur is hereby quashed. ( 7. ) WHILE hearing this petition, the case diary of Crime No. 26/95 of the offence under Sections 147/34, 341, 323 and 326 of IPC registered at Police Station bhanpura and the case diary of Crime No. 31/95 for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 326 of IPC registered in the same Police Station have perused. The records of Criminal Case Nos. 234/95 and 233/95 of Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Bhanpura, and the records of S. T. Nos. 91/03 and 90/03 of Additional sessions Judge, Bhanpura have also been perused. It is seen that the report of crime No. 26/95 was lodged by complainant J. S. Pinto, Bank Manager State bank of Indore, Bhanpura, wherein the name of Nimesh @ Banti and Ganesh mata were shown in FIR and various other persons were shown unknown: After completion of investigation police had filed charge sheet on 30. 7. 95 against 8 accused persons in total namely; Nimesh Tiwari @ Banti, Ganesh Mata, Bashir, dheerendra, Prakash, Hukumchand, Ramesh and Shiv, however, Radheshyam and Sanjay were not the accused in the said offence. ( 8. 7. 95 against 8 accused persons in total namely; Nimesh Tiwari @ Banti, Ganesh Mata, Bashir, dheerendra, Prakash, Hukumchand, Ramesh and Shiv, however, Radheshyam and Sanjay were not the accused in the said offence. ( 8. ) IT further reveals from the record that the first order sheet of JMFC, bhanpura in Criminal Case No. 234/95 is of dated 20. 9. 1995, who had tagged the order sheets of another crime No. 31/95 with this case, while the order of committal had passed by Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the then JMFC, Bhanpura vide order dated 14. 7. 2003 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandsaur against, 8 accused persons namely Ramesh S/o Ramchandra, Prakash S/o Babulal, radheshyam S/o Goverdhan (not the accused of Crime No. 26/95 ). Ganesh S/o heerachand, Nimesh @ Banti S/o G. P. Tiwari, Hukumchand S/o Manakchand, shiv S/o Mangilal and Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal (not accused in Crime No. 26/95. but an accused of Crime No. 31/95 of the same Police Station. In view of the aforesaid it is apparent that two persons namely Radheshyam and Sanjay, who were not the accused of the said crime number (26/95), wrongly joined in committal order, while two persons namely Bashir and Dheerendra who were the accused in the said crime, but their case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session for trial. ( 9. ) THE then Sessions Judge, Mandsaur vide order dated 21. 7. 2003 made over the Criminal Case No. 234/95 to the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura registering it as ST. No. 91/03 (Crime No. 26/95 ). The Sessions Judge, Mandsaur while making over the case had not verified, how many persons were the accused in Crime No. 26/95, and against how many persons the order of committal had passed. Thus, the S. T. No. 91/03 was made over to the then Additional sessions Judge, Bhanpura in respect to the accused persons shown in committal order, and not as per charge sheet. ( 10. ) IT is surprising, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, Dr. J. C. Sunhere without ascertaining the names of the accused from the contents of FIR and charge sheet of Crime No. 26/95, and proceeded to decide the Sessions Trial. He had framed the charge against accused Radheshyam, recorded evidence and finally acquitted him vide judgment dated 12. 4. 2005. ) IT is surprising, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, Dr. J. C. Sunhere without ascertaining the names of the accused from the contents of FIR and charge sheet of Crime No. 26/95, and proceeded to decide the Sessions Trial. He had framed the charge against accused Radheshyam, recorded evidence and finally acquitted him vide judgment dated 12. 4. 2005. It is very surprising that order of issuance of perpetual warrant of arrest against accused Sanjay has been passed in the same case, whereas he is not the accused of said crime. It is relevant to point out here that the accused persons namely Deerendra and Bashir, were the accused in Crime No. 26/95, but neither any order of committal of their case has yet been passed, nor they have tried yet to the said offence. ( 11. ) SIMILARLY, in an another offence, registered vide crime No. 31/95 at Police Station Bhanpura, under Sections 341, 323 and 326 of IPC, oh the basis of complaint lodged by Mr. L. S. Katiyar, Dy. Manager, State Bank of Indore, Bhanpura for the incident of about 10:25 am in the morning dated 11. 2. 95. After investigation, charge sheet had filed against 8 accused persons namely Radheshaym, Ramesh, Prakash, Ganesh Mata, nimesh @ Banti, Hukumchand, Shiv and Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal on 30. 7. 95. It reveals that first order sheet of Criminal Case No. 233/95 is of dated 20. 9. 95 of JMFC, bhanpura who has tagged the order sheet, relating to another Crime No. 26/95, in this case. In the committal order dated 14. 7. 2003 passed by the then JMFC, Bhanpura mr. Manoj Tiwari, made total 10 persons as accused namely Radheshyam, Prakash, ganesh, Nimesh @ Banti, Hukumchand, Shiv, Rameshchandra. Dheerendra. Bashir (not the accused in the said crime number) and Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal (wrongly showing his fathers name as Kanwarlal ). The then Sessions Judge. Mandsaur vide order dated 21. 7. 03 made over the Criminal Case No. 233/95 to the then Additional sessions Judge, Bhanpura registering it as S. T. No. 90/03 of Crime No. 31/95. The sessions Judge, Mandsaur while making over the case had not verified how many persons were accused in Crime No. 31/95 and against how many persons the order of committal had passed. 7. 03 made over the Criminal Case No. 233/95 to the then Additional sessions Judge, Bhanpura registering it as S. T. No. 90/03 of Crime No. 31/95. The sessions Judge, Mandsaur while making over the case had not verified how many persons were accused in Crime No. 31/95 and against how many persons the order of committal had passed. Thus in the sessions trial, which was made over to the then additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura persons were joined accused as per committal order, and not as per the charge sheet. ( 12. ) IT is surprising, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, Dr. J. C. Sunhere without ascertaining the names of the accused persons from the contents of FIR and charge sheet of Crime No. 31/95, and proceeded to decide the sessions trial. He had framed the charges against accused persons Dheerendra and Bashir, recorded evidence and finally acquitted them vide judgment dated 12. 4. 2005 giving benefit of doubt. It is very interesting that by a separate order, perpetual warrant of arrested was issued against Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal, though Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal r/o Bhanpura is me accused in the said crime. Thus, in Crime No. 31/95 the accused sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal has not yet been tried for the said offences. ( 13. ) BECAUSE both the crime numbers (26/95 and 31/95), wherein all these persons are accused, are of the same police station and the prosecution version having connection with each other, however, reference of the prosecution version is as follows. In Crime No. 26/95, complainant Mr. J. S. Pinto, Bank Manager, state Bank of Indore, Bhanpura lodged the FIR. While in Crime No. 31/95 complainant Mr. L. S. Katiyar, Dy. Manager, State Bank of Indore, Bhanpura lodged the FIR. In both the cases the date of incident is the same i. e. 11. 2. 95, but the time and place of incident are different. A mob headed by Nimesh and ramesh, over about 50 persons created hinderence, to Manager and Dy. Manager of the Bank in discharge of their official duty on the pretext of non-sanctioning of the loan. They were abused and assaulted by the such mob, however, the said firs were lodged by them to take action against accused persons and to provide them security. Manager of the Bank in discharge of their official duty on the pretext of non-sanctioning of the loan. They were abused and assaulted by the such mob, however, the said firs were lodged by them to take action against accused persons and to provide them security. On going through various noting (Parchas) of the case diaries of both the cases, it reveals that the accused persons were related to the MLA of the area, who had made the prestige issue in the matter of the arrest of the accused persons. As per notings of the case diaries the said MLA had contended to the police officers with respect of having talk with the Chief Minister, and said that the accused persons should not be arrested without his orders. It has also corne on record that one of the police officers trying hard to arrest the accused persons was line attached, thus the accused persons could have been arrested after a long lapse of time, while Sanjay s/o Bhanwarlal has not yet arrested, and produced before the Court. ( 14. ) IN view of foregoing discussion, it appears that on filing the challan of Crime nos. 26/95 and 31/95 order sheets of Criminal Case Nos. 234/95, and 233/95 were written on 20. 9. 95, but attached in the different case files by the then Judicial magistrate First Class, Bhapura (name is not reflected from the order sheet ). In crime No. 26/95 Radheshya arid Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal wrongly shown his fathers name as Kanwarlal were made accused as per committal order dated 14. 7. 2003 passed by Mr. Manoj Tiwari the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanpura. The case of the accused persons Bashir and Dharmendra were not committed for the said crime, though they were accused therein. In crime No. 31/95 the case was committed against 10 accused persons including Dharmendra and Bashir, though they were not accused of crime No. 31/95. In the order of committal the name of Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal has wrongly been mentioned as Sanjay S/o kanwarlal. Thus working of both the Judicial Magistrate. Bhanpura, posted at the relevant time is requires close scrutiny. ( 15. ) IN both the cases the then Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (name is not reflected from order sheet) had made over the S. T. No. 90/03 of crime No. 31/95 and ST. Thus working of both the Judicial Magistrate. Bhanpura, posted at the relevant time is requires close scrutiny. ( 15. ) IN both the cases the then Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (name is not reflected from order sheet) had made over the S. T. No. 90/03 of crime No. 31/95 and ST. No. 91/03 of crime No. 26/95 to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura. On committal of the cases the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur had not verified the names of the accused persons from the committal orders and charge sheet, while making over the said session trial to Additional Sessions Judge, bhanpura, therefore, the then Sessions Judge, Bhanpura has acted without perusal of record and irresponsibly, which requires scrutiny. ( 16. ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura Dr. J. C. Sunhere in ST. No. 91/03 had framed the charges against the accused person Radheshyam, and after recording evidence acquitted him vide judgment dated 12. 4. 2005 by giving benefit of doubt; while perpetual warrant of arrest had issued against Sanjay S/o kanwarlal, though he is not the accused in the said crime, as per the charge sheet. It is pertinent that two accused persons of the said crime namely dharmendera and Bashir have not yet been tried. Similarly, in S. T. No. 90/03 the asj, Bhanpura Dr. J. C. Sunhere has framed the charge against the accused persons Dharmendra and Bashir and recorded evidence. By the judgment dated 12. 4. 2005 both were acquitted giving benefit of doubt, in fact both were not the accused of crime No. 31/95. One of the accused Sanjay S/o Kanwarlal has been shown absconding, in fact as per charge sheet his name is Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal r/o Bhanpura. Thus the working of the then ASJ, Bhanpura Dr. J. C. Sunhere is without application of mined, negligent, and under clouds, which requires scrutiny. ( 17. ) AS per cardinal principles of law the persons who are accused to an offence should not be left without trial, while a citizen should not be tried for an offence in which he is not the accused. In the present case on account of non-application of mind, irresponsible and negligent working of two Judicial Magistrates, First Class, one Additional Sessions Judge and one Sessions Judge has led to acted not in accordance to the process of law. In the present case on account of non-application of mind, irresponsible and negligent working of two Judicial Magistrates, First Class, one Additional Sessions Judge and one Sessions Judge has led to acted not in accordance to the process of law. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the work performance of the said four judicial officers posted at Bhanpura and Mandsaur at the relevant time requires scrutiny by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court in respect to aforementioned cases, and also of other cases of such period, after getting approval from Honble the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh on administrative side. Consequently this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- " (i) The order of issuance of perpetual warrant against petitioner in S. T. No. 91/03 (of crime No. 26/95) dated 12. 4. 2005 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura is without any authority, hence set aside. Consequentially, the proclamation with respect to perpetual warrant of arrest issued by Superintendent of Police, mandsaur dated 23. 11. 2008 (Annexure-A/5) is quashed. (ii) The accused of crime No. 26/95 namely Dharmendra and bashir shall be taken into custody by the Police and be produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanpura for trial in accordance with law. The Court competent is at liberty to release them on bail during trial. (iii) The accused Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal R/o Bhanpura be also taken into custody in the crime No. 31/95 of Police Station, Bhanpura and be produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, bhanpura for trial in accordance with law. (iv) In the aforementioned facts and circumstances the Vigilance cell of the High Court shall go through the case diary of crime Nos. 26/ 95 and 31/95 of Police Station, Bhanpura and Criminal Case Nos. 233/95,234/95 of Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanpura and also S. T. Nos. 90/03 and 91/03 of ASJ, Bhanpura, which is available with Bench Registry of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 478, 498, 479,456 and 499 of 2005, shall inquire about working of aforementioned four Judicial Officers after getting approval from Honble the Chief justice on administrative side and prepare a report on the issues discussed above or any other points. Thereafter the said report be placed before the respective Committees to take decision for proposed action against the officers. Thereafter the said report be placed before the respective Committees to take decision for proposed action against the officers. (v) The Bench Registry of this Court shall transmit the copy of this order to Principal Seat to do the needful: A copy of this order be also placed on record of pending and disposed of criminal appeals of each accused persons for perusal of the Court. A copy of this order be also sent to District and Sessions Judge, Mandsaur and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhanpura and the concerned Judicial Magistrates for their knowledge. (vi) A copy of this order be also sent to the Superintendent of police, Mandsaur and the concerned SHO of Bhanpura to take appropriate action and to arrest the accused persons, and submit the compliance report to the Bench Registry. Petition disposed of.