Public official's certification of fraudulent beneficiary lists justifies summoning as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

In 2014, a complaint was filed regarding a government wheat procurement scheme in District Morena, alleging that a cooperative society manager illegally enrolled ineligible persons to divert benefits

An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC

During the trial (Session Trial No. 313/2016), the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to implead the petitioner, a Patwari, as an additional accused

The prosecution alleged the petitioner certified forged farmer lists (Exhibits P-2 to P-28) that served as the foundation for the fraudulent procurement

The petitioner contended his role was limited to ministerial land verification within his specific "Halka" and that no criminal intent was present

The Trial Court allowed the application on 03.04.2025, which the petitioner challenged via this revision

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which grants discretionary power to join any person as an accused if evidence indicates their complicity in the offence

The test for summoning under Section 319 is higher than the standard for framing charges; it requires "much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity" but "short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction" as established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92

The High Court found that the procurement of wheat was conducted exclusively based on certified lists bearing the petitioner's signatures (Exhibits P-2 to P-28)

Citing witness testimonies (PW-3 and PW-8), the court noted that the petitioner's certification was not a mere formality but a foundational act that conferred legal legitimacy on the procurement of wheat from ineligible persons and outsiders

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the matter was a civil wrong, stating that the authentication of a fraudulent list by a public servant to divert government funds prima facie constitutes a criminal offence

Regarding the petitioner's defense that he only certified entries for his specific jurisdiction, the court held that such arguments pertain to the merits of the case and must be adjudicated during the trial, as the presence of his signature on the fraudulent lists met the "higher threshold" required for impleadment under Section 319

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to summon the petitioner to face trial alongside the existing accused

The court clarified that its observations were limited to the revision and directed the Trial Court to decide the matter on its merits uninfluenced by this order