SUKHDIYAL SINGH MAJOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. K. Mittal, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23. 9. 1999 passed by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 117 of 1998 whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28. 8. 1998 passed by the learned C. J. M. , Rampur in Criminal Case No 2003 of 1998 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 417 IPC, P. S. Bilaspur, District Rampur.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Major Sukh Dayal Singh the revisionist filed a written report at P. S. Bilaspur on 5. 4. 1997 alleging that his wife husband and son had agriculture land in village Chandiyan, P. S. Bilaspur. Since they were not living in the village at the relevant time the accused Rajendra Singh and Jogendra Singh, forged their signatures before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and got the land transferred in the name of Kulveer Singh, Kishan Singh and Himmat Singh. When the record was seen for the purpose of filing appeal it came to notice that even the original papers were replaced by forged documents. On that basis case was registered and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate summoned the accused and the accused persons filed objection 27 Ka and 29 Ka alleging that the alleged fraud if any was committed in the Court proceedings and therefore the prosecution was barred by section 195 Cr. P. C. and prayed for discharge. However learned Magistrate did not accept their contention and rejected their applications. Against that order a revision was filed in the lower Revisional Court which accepted the contention as raised by the accused persons and held that criminal proceedings were barred by section 195 Cr. P. C. Consequently he allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved present revision has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties has contended that this plea as taken by the revisionist that he was not impleaded as party in the revision is not acceptable because he was not a necessary party and was not required to be impleaded. This contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted. If a criminal revision is filed accused should also implead the informant as he is aggrieved person.