Saurabh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 25-03-2026

<div> 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1979 of 2025 SAURABH SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS </div><table><tbody><tr><td>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shri</td><td>Ankur Maheshwari with Shri Dharmvir Singh Parihar – Advocate</td></tr><tr><td>for the petitioner.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for the petitioner.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> Shri Mohit Shivhare – GA appearing for State. </div><table><tbody><tr><td>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.03.2026</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ORDER RESERVED ON</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>:</td><td></td><td></td><td>16.03.2026</td></tr><tr><td>ORDER PASSED ON : 25/03/2026</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ORDER PASSED ON</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>:</td><td></td><td></td><td>25/03/2026</td></tr><tr><td>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ORDER With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), challenging the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Morena, in Session Trial No. 313/2016, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the State Government operates a wheat procurement scheme through cooperative societies at the 2 Minimum Support Price (MSP). Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Saithra Aheer/ Brahatarkar Cooperative Society, Saithra Tehsil Porsa, District Morena, was one such society, managed by accused Shivraj Singh Tomar as its Secretary/Manager. 4. On 11.06.2014, one Ramveer Sharma filed a complaint with the District Collector, Morena, and other authorities, alleging serious infirmities in the wheat procurement, alleging that the manager of Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Saithra Aheer/Brahatarkar Cooperative Society, Saithra Tehsil Porsa, Shivraj Singh Tomar had illegally enrolled ineligible persons, including his own family members and outsiders who were not actual cultivators of land within the society's service area, and had caused fraudulent registration of such persons to divert the benefits of the Government's wheat procurement scheme to them. 5. The said complaint was enquired into by the Junior Civil Supply Officer, Porsa, and on the basis of said enquiry and subsequent investigation, an FIR was registered on 26.05.2014 as Crime No. 262/2014 at Police Station Porsa, District Morena, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC" ). After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet (Annexure-P/2) before the competent Magistrate implicating 13 accused persons, including the manager Shivraj Singh Tomar and several alleged beneficiary farmers. The matter was committed to the Court of Session and registered as Session Trial No. 313/2016 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, 3 District Morena. 6. On 15.01.2020, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court praying that the present petitioner be arraigned as additional accused in the trial on the ground that it clearly establishes the active role of the petitioner in the preparation and certification of forged farmer lists, which formed the foundation of the fraudulent wheat procurement and that he was, therefore, liable to be tried along with the existing accused for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The similar application was also filed by the prosecution u/s 319 of Cr.P.C on 25.02.2020 praying to arraign Jandel Singh Tomar (Revenue Inspector) as additional accused in the Trial. 7. The petitioner filed the reply to the said application on 05.03.2020, denying the allegations and contending that the list was prepared by the Saithra Ahir Society on the basis of which wheat was procured and no forged document was created by him. The learned Sessions Court, vide the impugned order dated 03.04.2025, allowed the prosecution's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present criminal revision against the said order. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:- (I) The impugned order is contrary to the evidence on record and is bad in law. The only allegation against the Petitioner is that, as a Patwari of Jal Ka Nagra, he verified the 4 list of farmers. Such verification alone does not prima facie establish any offence of cheating or forgery under the IPC. (ii) The Petitioner has not made or created any forged document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. Mere verification or authentication of a list prepared and forwarded by the society does not amount to fabrication of a false document. Therefore, offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC are not made out against the Petitioner. (iii) As per the Government's wheat procurement policy, no independent duty was assigned to the Patwari, and his role was limited to certifying land details of farmers within his Halka. (iv) The Petitioner, being Patwari of Jal Ka Nagra only, certified the list of farmers whose land was located within his Halka. The list Exhibits P-2 to P-28 contains farmers from multiple villages and the petitioner could not have, and did not, certify entries pertaining to villages outside his Halka. The learned Sessions Court ignored this material distinction. (v) The standard of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, is higher than mere framing of charge. In the present case, no such higher threshold has been crossed. (vi) The offences, if any, amount to a civil wrong and not a criminal one. The Petitioner was not benefited from the 5 scheme and had no motive to participate in any fraud. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the Petitioner, as a public servant holding a post of trust, certified the fraudulent list, which was the very foundation of the procurement fraud. Multiple witnesses have consistently deposed that the lists bearing the Petitioner's signature (Exhibit P-2 to P-28) was the sole basis for wheat procurement. The Petitioner was in a position to know, from his revenue records, whether the persons named in the list were genuine cultivators of land within his Halka. The certification by the Petitioner of a list containing ineligible persons directly facilitated the commission of the fraud and the evidence reveals a prima facie case, indeed more than prima facie case against him. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the present revision. 10. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 11. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, by the detailed order dated 03.04.2025, allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The salient findings of the Session Court may be summarised as follows: (I) Multiple witnesses had deposed that wheat procurement was conducted only on the basis of the certified lists prepared and authenticated by the local Patwari, and those lists bore the Petitioner's signatures; (ii) The evidence established that ineligible persons and outsiders were enrolled as farmers and their names inserted in 6 the certified lists. (iii) Relying on the circular dated 20.03.2009 of the MP Government, the Court noted that under the applicable scheme, the Patwari was required to provide a certificate proving the cultivator's land details before the purchase could be made; (iv) The evidence of multiple witnesses collectively establish that the lists (Exhibits P-2 to P-28) were prepared with the active participation and certification of the Petitioner and others. 12. The law on Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been well settled by the Constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19, inter-alia, as follows:- “8.The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to 7 book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. 9.The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent. These competing theories have been kept in mind by the legislature. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in our opinion, in order to achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporating provisions of Section 319 CrPC. It is with the said object in mind that a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does not dilute the intention of the statute conferring powers on the court to carry out the abovementioned avowed object and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the offence that is the subject-matter of trial. * * 12.Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC. 8 13.It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 CrPC? * * * * 18.The legislature cannot be presumed to have imagined all the circumstances and, therefore, it is the duty of the court to give full effect to the words used by the legislature so as to encompass any situation which the court may have to tackle while proceeding to try an offence and not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being not arraigned in the trial in spite of the possibility of his complicity which can be gathered from the documents presented by the prosecution. 19.The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence.” …..Emphasis supplied 9 13. As per the law declared by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court “The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence, but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in para 106 as under:- “106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross- examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such 10 person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 15. The Court further held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so demand. 16. The moot question in the present case is whether the evidence adduced during the trial at the stage when the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, discloses sufficient material of the degree to warrant summoning the Petitioner as an additional accused? 17. This Court answers the aforesaid question in affirmative for the following reasons:- (I) The evidence of multiple prosecution witnesses is consistent and unequivocal on the point that wheat procurement was made exclusively on the basis of the certified lists of farmers and that such lists bore the signatures of the Patwari. PW-3 (Jandel Singh) specifically deposed that the society manager brought the registration list, which had been certified by Mauza Patwari Saurabh Sharma (Petitioner herein) and it was on the basis of that certified list that he authenticated the procurement. The Government's policy circular also stipulates that where Khasra (B-1) documents of cultivators are not available, the Patwari's certificate 11 regarding land details is mandatory before procurement. The Petitioner's certification was thus not a ministerial formality, it was a foundational act that conferred legal legitimacy upon the procurement. (ii) The evidence reveals a consistent picture that the certified farmer lists (Exhibit P- 2 to P-28) contained names of persons who were not actual cultivators or who were ineligible for the MSP scheme. PW-8 (Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi), the investigating Junior Civil Supply Officer) specifically deposed that his inquiry report found that fictitious/ineligible persons, including bataidars without agreements, had been enrolled, and that the certified lists contained the names of family members of the society manager and outsiders. The Petitioner, as the Mauza Patwari, was custodian of the land records of his Halka and was the very person whose professional function required him to verify whether the listed person were genuine cultivators. (iii) The Petitioner's primary defence is that he certified only the entries of farmers whose land was located in Jal Ka Nagra (his Halka) and that the list Exhibit P-2 to P- 28 contains entries from multiple villages outside his Halka, which he did not and could not certify. This is a defence that goes to the merits of the case and requires an appreciation of the documentary evidence, particularly a comparison between Exhibits P-2 to P-28 and the Halka-wise revenue records, at 12 full trial. It cannot be accepted or rejected at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction. The Petitioner's signatures are admittedly present on the certified lists and the question of what those signatures signify or how they came to be there is precisely a question for the trial. (iv) The submission that the matter involves only a civil wrong is untenable. However, if the Petitioner certified a list as correct knowing that it contained names of ineligible persons or by failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a public officer, such conduct would prima facie bring him within the criminal offence. The authentication of a fraudulent list by a revenue official empowers the fraud perpetrated on the Government. Obtaining Government funds through fraud perpetrated by falsely certifying beneficiary list to divert MSP benefits to ineligible persons constitutes, prima facie, the criminal act and cannot be characterized as mere civil wrongs. Whether the Petitioner's act of certification amounts to 'making a false document' is a question of fact and law to be decided by the Trial Court after appreciation of evidence at trial. 18. The Petitioner has placed reliance on Hardeep Singh (supra) and submitted that the standard of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than framing of charge and that the evidence does not cross this threshold in 13 his case. This Court is not persuaded by this submission. The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) held that the test is whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction. The multiple prosecution witnesses consistently implicating the Petitioner's certified signatures on the very lists that formed the basis of the fraudulent procurement, at this stage, are sufficient to cross the threshold contemplated. The veracity of that evidence and the Petitioner's explanation thereof are matters for trial. 19. The contention of the Petitioner that the scheme assigns no role to the Patwari in the procurement process and that he was therefore wrongly implicated has been considered. However, as the impugned order correctly records the Government policy circular specifically contemplates the Patwari's certification when standard land documents are unavailable. More importantly, the evidence shows that the Petitioner's certified list was actually used as the basis for procurement. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that (i) the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Morena, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., so far as the petitioner is concerned, does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or non-application of mind. (ii) The Petitioner's defences on the merits, regarding jurisdictional limits of his Halka, lack of mens rea, and the role assigned to Patwaris under the scheme, are matters that are to be agitated before and adjudicated by the learned Sessions Court at the stage of trial. (iii) This 14 Court finds no compelling ground to interfere with the discretionary order of the Sessions Court in the exercise of revisional or inherent jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed . 22. It is, however, made clear that all observations made in this order are confined to the determination of the present revision and shall not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the guilt or innocence of the Petitioner. The learned Sessions Court shall decide Session Trial No. 313/2016 on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. (PUSHPENDRA YADAV) chandni* JUDGE CHAND NI NARWA RIYA Digitally signed by CHANDNI NARWARIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b5abcc1 b4614d98feabd8b78228e0ec6eab9a 0bd4e622c09, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7022823, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8c306c586aaa43d199 76f07886865f6fac4a246eee6bccd256 acdfce3dcf944f, cn=CHANDNI NARWARIYA Date: 2026.03.25 17:10:18 +05'30'</div>