Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.3.2009 Paramjit Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent no.1. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of order dated 16.1.2008, passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge and an order of even date framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and a third charge under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, against the petitioner's co-accused. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering arguments for discharge, the Special Judge, recorded a positive finding that the contract number has not been forged by any of the accused, as it was issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department to regulate delivery of rice to the Food Corporation of India. However, while framing the charge under Section 120-B IPC, a specific reference has been made to the Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 2 preparation of fictitious and forged contract numbers. It is further argued that the petitioner is a stranger to the firm M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Rice Mills, as he is neither a partner nor an employee. In the absence of material, on record, to link the petitioner to the firm, charges could not have been framed against the petitioner. It is prayed that in view of the aforementioned submissions, the revision petition be allowed and the order framing charges qua the petitioner be quashed. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the firm M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Rice Mills was black listed and, therefore, could not have been allotted paddy for custom milling. The petitioner, the partners of the mill, Sh.Subhash Chander Gakhar and H.S.Bains, Branch Manager and District Manager of Markfed conspired to prepare fictitious and forged records, to facilitate allotment of paddy to the firm, for custom milling. The firm could not have been allotted paddy for custom milling. The petitioner and his co-accused have, therefore, been rightly charged for commission of offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders dated 16.1.2008, rejecting petitioner's prayer for discharge and the order framing charges against the petitioner. The learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, while considering the petitioner's arguments against framing of charges observed as follows :- 7.” It is correct that no stock of paddy or rice is alleged to have been misappropriated by any of the accused. It is also evident from the documents available on the file that no contract number has been forged by any of the Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 3 accused. It is admitted fact that the alleged contract number is issued by the Food and Supplies Department to regulate the delivery of rice to the FCI and it is merely a token of proof that the rice is ready for delivery. So, the contract number is not a document. Moreover, the said contract number is verbally issued by the Food and Supplies Department directly to the millers. So, from the allegations and documents available on file, no offence under Sections 409/468 or 471 IPC is prima facie made out against any of the accused and the accused are discharged of the abovesaid allegations.” It is apparent from a perusal of the above extract that the Special Court has recorded a positive finding that there was no forgery in the contract number and, therefore, charges could not be framed under Sections 409/468 or 471 IPC. However, while framing charges under Section 120-B IPC, the Special Court set out the facts against the accused as follows :- “That you Paramjit Kumar, Janak Raj, Darshan Lal and Rajesh Kumar, during the year 2002-03 in the area of Ferozepur City, agreed to do and caused to be done an illegal act in connivance with you Subash Chander Gakhar, Branch Manager, Makrfed and H.S. Bains, District Manager, Ferozepur, to wit cause wrongful gain to all of you and wrongful loss of 226 wagons of paddy, which were milled for Markfed and FCI, pertaining to Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 4 said departments i.e. Markfed Agency and Food Corporation of India, Ferozepur intentionally and knowing that M/s Jai Shiv Bholey is a defaulter of the year 2001-02 and prepared fictitious/forged record viz. fictitious and forged contract numbers and thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” It is apparent from the above extracts that while rejecting the prayer for discharge, the Special Court has recorded a positive finding that there were no fictitious or forged contract number for which the petitioner and his co-accused should be charged. However, while setting out the facts for framing charge under Section 120-B IPC, the Special Court has observed that the accused prepared fictitious and forged contract numbers. This apparent contradiction between the findings recorded in these orders have not been satisfactorily explained by the respondent would, therefore, necessitate a reconsidertion by the Special Judge, Ferozepur. As regards the petitioner's argument that the petitioner is neither a partner nor a functionary of M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Rice Mills and, charges, therefore, could not be framed against him, suffice it to say that this argument relates to the petitioner's defence and should be left to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the trial Court, as the prosecution alleges that the petitioner procured a contract for custom milling, executed the contract and delivered the rice to the FCI on behalf of M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Rice Mills, a black listed firm. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision is Crl.Rev.No.1229 of 2008 5 partly allowed and the order framing charges under Section 120-B IPC is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Court, Ferozepur, to reconsider material on record before framing charges under Section 120-B IPC and pass orders, in respect thereof within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.3.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE