Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Dr. Narendra Mawale, accused No.5 in Special Case No.5 of 2009, challenging the order dated 1st June 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The background of the case is that a crime was registered based on a report by Dr. Arun Thosar, Civil Surgeon, Akola, alleging that between 1st April 2004 and 30th November 2006, goods and articles were purchased by officers of Laxmibai Deshmukh Hospital, Murtizapur, without any sanction order from the Government or sanction of grant. The investigation revealed that sanction orders were forged and fabricated, and bills were submitted without actual purchase, leading to misappropriation of government funds amounting to Rs.26,90,18,908/-. A charge-sheet was filed against 25 accused, and the applicant, who was working as In-charge Superintendent and Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the hospital between 1st August 2005 and 29th November 2006, applied for discharge. The legal issue was whether a prima facie case was made out against the applicant to proceed with trial. The applicant argued that the Civil Surgeon was the Controlling Authority and that he had no role in the alleged conspiracy or misappropriation. The State opposed the discharge. The court analyzed the material on record and found that the applicant was not shown to have any specific role in the alleged offences; the allegations were vague and did not establish his involvement. The court held that the applicant was entitled to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC. The decision was to allow the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and discharge the applicant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused based on the material on record; if not, the accused is entitled to be discharged. (Paras 6-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(c), (d) - Misappropriation - Conspiracy - The applicant, as In-charge Superintendent and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, was not shown to have any role in the alleged conspiracy or misappropriation of government funds; the material did not disclose any specific act or omission on his part. (Paras 7-10) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal Breach of Trust - Cheating - Forgery - The allegations against the applicant were vague and did not establish his involvement in the alleged offences; the court held that the applicant was entitled to be discharged. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant/accused No.5 is entitled to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 13(c), (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st June 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, is set aside. The applicant/accused No.5 is discharged from Special Case No.5 of 2009.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Conspiracy
- Misappropriation
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
