MOHAN CHAND BAIDH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against order dated 23.2.2010 by which the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant along with co-accused Sunil Kumar Santwani and Rajesh Sethiya who have been charged of commission of offence under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of the IPC and Section 137 of the Railways Act.

(2.) Fake currency notes of Rs. 10,87,900/- were found in possession of co-accused Sunil Santwani while travelling in the train on 10.10.1995. On a memorandum taken, he informed the police regarding involvement of other accused, taking clue therefrom, investigation was carried out by the police and charge sheet was filed in the Court against the applicant and other accused persons namely - Sunil Santwani, Rajesh Sethiya, Sunil Jain, Manoj Jain and Hemant. The prosecution story is that applicant and other accused, acting in close concert and conspiracy, are involved in distribution of fake currency notes. Though the offence was registered in the year 1995, charges were framed by the trial Court on 23.2.2010 against all the accused including the applicant. It is this order which is under challenge in the revision before this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant argued that no prima facie case for framing charges against the applicant is made out. He contends that even at the stage of framing of charge, some prima facie material of admissible nature is required to be placed in the charge sheet before the Court, before a person could be subjected to agony of criminal trial. According to him, involvement of applicant is only on certain suspicion which is not supported by any material constituting admissible evidence, which, if proved by the prosecution during trial, may lead to conviction of the applicant on the allegation of conspiracy of commission of offence under Section 489-B, 489-C and Section 137 of the Railways Act. Further contention of learned senior counsel is that the statements/confessions of the other accused persons are not admissible even against the maker of such confession, much less an admissible evidence of applicant being one of the conspirators of commission of alleged offence. The case diary statements of prosecution witnesses do not even prima facie indicate involvement of the applicant with other accused, particularly Sunil Santwani and Rajesh Sethiya. No incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant.