High Court Rejects Quashing Petition, Holds Prima Facie Material Exists to Proceed in Alleged PDS Rice Diversion Case

A single-judge bench of Justice Mehroz K. Pathan heard a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2021. The petition arose out of an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, dated 15.03.2021, by which the trial court rejected the accused’s application for discharge in a prosecution alleging diversion of rice meant for school mid-day meals.

The High Court rejected the petition and held that there was "sufficient material" on the record to proceed to trial. The court reiterated the settled principle that the defence of the accused, including an alibi, was not normally to be examined at the discharge stage and that the scope of scrutiny was limited to whether a prima facie case existed on the materials produced by the prosecution. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression ‘the record of the case’ used in Section 227 CrPC is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.” The court also recorded that “Thus, sufficient material exists at this stage to proceed against the applicants,” and that the revisional court had correctly refused to interfere.

Background

The dispute arose after police received secret information that food grains meant for school children were being transported for sale. During a raid on 24.10.2018 an auto-rickshaw driven by one Nazim Shaikh was intercepted and one gunny bag of rice bearing an ISI mark and the inscription "Swachh Bharat manufactured in India" was seized. Nazim allegedly stated that the gunny bag had been delivered to him by the Headmistress of Modern Urdu Primary School, Kashifa Kausar Sayed Sirajoddin, and the school peon, Sayed Rauf Ali, for the purpose of resale. An FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act followed and Nazim was arrested.

The petitioners contended that they were implicated solely on the basis of the statement of the arrested co-accused and that there was no independent material linking them to the seized rice. They relied on an attendance certificate from the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, showing the Headmistress and the peon attended a staff meeting from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on the date of the seizure, and on gaps in the school’s rice receipt register and the absence of any marking on the seized bag identifying the school. The petition alleged the prosecution case to be false and motivated.

The State pointed to communications sent by the investigating officer to the Education Officer and District Supply Officer, and to tabular material suggesting irregularities in the school’s records; it argued that the question of alibi and other defence pleas were matters for trial and not for adjudication at the discharge stage. The High Court accepted the prosecution’s position that the materials produced by the investigation justified proceeding to trial, and relied on Supreme Court authority (State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688 and Krishnanath v. State) to hold that in-depth scrutiny of defence evidence was impermissible at the discharge stage.

The High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, declined to continue the interim protection that had stayed trial proceedings since 07.09.2022, and expressly recorded that its observations were prima facie in nature and “shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits.”

Case No.: 905 CRI WP NO. 1072 OF 2022 Case Title: Kashifa Kausar Sayed Sirajoddin & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra (through Incharge Police Station Officer, Beed City Police Station, Beed) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate, a/w Mrs. M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate, instructed by Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. AAA Khan, APP for the State