Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 798 (MP)

Ishwar Singh Malviya v. State of M. P.

2022-06-09

ANAND PATHAK

body2022
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner for recalling and modification of the order dated 11.7.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5060/2019 by this Court whereby certain directions have been given to the Collector, Guna to take action against the petitioner because of his alleged lapse in duties as Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil Chachoda, District Guna. 2. From the facts, it appears that case was registered against the some accused persons for commission of offence under sections 294, 341, 147, 353/149, 506 of IPC and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, at the instance of the petitioner, who was working as Patwari at the relevant point of time. As per allegations, accused persons were causing illegal transportation of sand, when intercepted by the revenue authorities including Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and other officers then some accused came on the spot and caused interruption in the proceedings and forcibly taken away the tractor-trolley from the possession of revenue officers, also caused Marpeet with them and threatened the officials for dire consequences. 3. Petitioner was the complainant in the matter and on the basis of statement of petitioner, accused persons were arrested. During bail application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by some of the accused persons namely Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena who were allegedly the main culprits and their names figured in the FIR, who were enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Guna in which as per allegations, petitioner gave an affidavit stating that those accused persons namely Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena were not present on the spot, in fact they tried to settle the dispute. Therefore, trial Court granted bail to them whereas bail application of another accused Satish was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order, accused Satish preferred Criminal Appeal No.5060/2019 under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No.5060/2019 and this Court heard the matter on 11.7.2019 in which counsel for the appellant raised the point that affidavit has been given by the petitioner Ishwar Chand Malviya before the trial Court stating that those accused persons namely Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena were not present on the spot. It is further submitted that name of that appellant Satish did not figure in FIR still he is languishing in jail 4. On submissions so made, this Court prima facie found the conduct of present petitioner (a government servant) objectionable because such affidavit by a government officer ought not to be filed which helps the cause of accused person in any manner specially when offence under section 353 of IPC is alleged. Therefore, treating the statement of counsel for petitioner Satish as correct, certain directions were given to the Collector District Guna to take care of negligence and casualness shown by the the revenue authorities like the petitioner in the instant trial and bail application was rejected. 5. In pursuance thereof, it appears that Sub-Divisional Officer, Chachoda issued show cause notice to the petitioner and vide order dated 8.8.2019 removed the petitioner from services taking resort to Rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1962. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, District Guna but vide order dated 3.12.2019 Collector dismissed the appeal. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that because of observations made in the order dated 11.7.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.5060/2019, petitioner has been removed from the services. In fact petitioner never gave any affidavit in favour of accused persons namely Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena, but he has been made scapegoat to the whole episode. Learned counsel also referred the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No.10997/2019 wherein one of the co-accused Murarilal Meena preferred the appeal under section 14-A of the Atrocities Act in which directions were issued by this Court to the Collector Guna to conduct the detailed inquiry about the conduct of all Patwaris, Revenue Inspectors, Tahsildars who made their statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in the instant case, but later on, they did not support the story of prosecution in their court statement. Surprisingly in the case of the petitioner, removal order has been passed but in case of other revenue officers who did not support the story of prosecution, no action has been taken. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 10.1.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10997/2019 (Murarilal Meena Vs. State of M.P.), appropriate order shall be ensured against the erring officers. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 10.1.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10997/2019 (Murarilal Meena Vs. State of M.P.), appropriate order shall be ensured against the erring officers. However, he submitted that because of the conduct of the petitioner, observations were made against him and same needs no recalling. It is further submitted that nowadays, tendency of some government officers is on the rise to serve the cause of accused persons in trial and defeat the cause of government/employer. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 9. This is case where petitioner is aggrieved by certain observations made in order dated 11.7.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5060/2019. The said observations prima facie were made on the basis of statement made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in which he mentioned the fact that an affidavit has been given by the petitioner to support the cause of bail of accused persons namely Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena, therefore, filing of an affidavit in support of accused persons by government officer or turning hostile in his deposition before the court and not supporting the cause of the prosecution by government officer/employee found by this court to be very serious in nature, therefore, court was prima facie of the view that same cannot be pardoned in any manner and only route available to them is Exit from Service. 10. But on close scrutiny, in the case in hand, it is the specific submission of counsel for petitioner that present petitioner namely Ishwar Chand Malviya never gave an affidavit before the trial Court in support of accused persons Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena and submissions of then counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No.5060/2019 was misplaced and said fact deserves reconsideration because if any affidavit has not been filed by the petitioner in support of accused persons then submissions of petitioner can be considered in view of the fact that he was newcomer in the department and did not know the nitty gritty of the legal procedure at early state of his career. Although, it is incumbent upon the government employee to understand the seriousness of legal procedure, once he enters into a government job, however; since the matter is based upon a misrepresentation of facts by counsel for appellant of Cr.A. No.5060/2019 to get undue sympathy from this Court and to get the bail, this Court intends to modify the order to the extent that Collector Guna is at liberty to verify the fact regarding submission or non-submission of affidavit of petitioner in the trial Court (Special Judge, Atrocities, Guna vide registration No.77/19) as well as statements made by the petitioner before trial court as prosecution witness (PW-1). Collector, District Guna may verify the facts from the record of trial Court (Special Judge, Atrocities, Guna) when the bail was granted to accused persons Rameshwar and Vishnu Meena as well as may verify the intention of the petitioner from his court statement made as prosecution witness (PW-1) and thereafter, Collector is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, order dated 11.7.2019, passed in CRA No.5060/2019 stands modified to this extent. 10. Petition is disposed of in above terms.