1. This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2023 in ST No. 33/2023 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi District Dhar whereby the charges under sections 409, 420 read with section 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC has been framed against the revision petitioner in a case arising out of crime No.841/2022 registered at P.S. Kukshi, District-Dhar (MP)

2. Facts of the case in brief are that aforesaid crime was registered on the complaint of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kukshi, District Dhar against three persons namely Praveen Kumar (present revision petitioner), Bhagwan Singh and Devi Singh Chouhan. Devi Singh Chouhan is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Kapsi, Bhagwan Singh is Sarpanch of Gram Panachayat Kapsi and present revision petitioner Praveen Kumar is the Panchayat Coordinator. The offence has been registered with the allegations in the (implementation of PM Awas Yojna Grameen) illegality in implementation at Gram Panchayat Kapsi. The allegations are that an amount of Rs.30,45,000/- belonging to PM Awas Yojna Grameen have been embezelled. The mode of embezzlement was through either fake list of beneficiaries or by attaching the account numbers of another persons who are not entitled to get the benefit of Yojna or by adding the fake IDs and the benefits were transferred to the persons other than the real beneficiaries. In that process, the amount was transferred in the name of persons who were not alive at that time.

3. The challenge to framing of charges on behalf of the present revision petitioner is that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value then also no case is made out for framing of charges against the revision petitioner. He did not participated in the offence actively. He did not withdrawn any amount. His role in the charge sheet is stated that his duty was to inspect the panchayat and to verify the record of the panchayat as coordinator of various panchayats. Allegations against him are that he did not verify the record of the beneficiary of PM Awas Yojna Grameen and also did not inspect the awas sites and he failed to perform his duty within the time limit. This allegations does not constitute any offence. He did not verify any ambiguous documents. Trial court failed to appreciate the effect of the documents filed alongwith the final report.

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the State oppose the revision petition.

6. Perused the final report along with the documents filed with the final report.

7. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

          "10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

          "227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

          If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.

          11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."

8. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under:

          "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

          (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

          (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

          (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

          (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

          (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

          (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

          (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

9. In the light of the above propositions of law we come to the facts of this case. The charges against the revision petitioner are with the aid of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120-B of the IPC. The revision petitioner was entrusted with the duty of supervising the implementation of the PM Awas Yojna Grameen. When the co-accused persons were committing the act constituting the offence then this revision petitioner omitted to perform his duty. As per section 33 of the IPC, 1860 the word "act" done extend also to illegal omissions. The omissions of acts can also make liable for criminal liability and omissions is defined as failure to perform the specific act when the law inflicts a duty to act.

10. In this case also when this court examined the material collected raises a "grave suspicion" justifying the framing of charges. The arguments raised by the revision petitioner are the matter of defense. They have not to be tested or appreciated at this stage. Hence this criminal revision has no substance and is hereby dismissed.