NAR NARAIN UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 21-7-2006 passed by Sri D. B. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Basti allowing Criminal Revision No. 229 of 2001 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 14-5-2001 passed by Sri J. R. Maurya, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti by discharging accused-revisionist Nar Narain Upadhyaya in Case No. 1346 of 2001, State v. Nar Narain Upadhyaya, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Kotwali Basti, District Basti. While allowing the revision, the lower revisional Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law keeping the observations made by it in mind.

(2.) THE brief facts, arising out of this revision, are that accused-revisionist Dr. Nar Narain Upadhyaya went to the office of informant Dr. Rajendra Prasad Paswan, Kshetriya Aurvedic Evam Unani Adhikari, Basti on 25-7-1999 at any time in to forenoon to take over charge as Medical Officer in Government Ayrvedic Hospital, Mahadewa, Sant Kabir Nagar and produced forged transfer order alongwith the application for order and application for permission to join the office. Having some doubts he sent all the orders/papers produced by the accused Dr. Nar Narain Upadhyaya for confirmation alongwith the covering letter to the Director of Aurvedic and Unani Services, U. P. Lucknow in response of which he received letter No. 14539/adhi. /13-A. G.-7/99 dated 9-8-1999 of the Director wherein the Director had ordered to lodge the First Information Report against accused Dr. Nar Narain Upadhyaya finding all transfer orders/papers produced by accused forged. On the basis of the direction of the Director above, the informant lodged the First Information Report against the accused on 27-8-1999 for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC, registered as case Crime No. 1116 of 1999 at P. S. Kotwali, Basti. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the above offence.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the lower revisional Court has no power to substitute its own finding of fact recorded by the trial Court by re-appreciating the evidence. IT is further contended that the lower revisional Court tried to blow hot and cold together by holding that the accused is not entitled to adduce evidence at the time of framing charges and by holding that charges can be framed on grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. IT is further contended that the lower revisional Court has failed to consider that two view are equally possible and the evidence produced before the Court below does not create grave suspicion with regard to the commission of the crime, the accused will be discharged and benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. IT is further contended that there is nothing on record in this case except the statement of informant which may give rise to a suspicion; but not to a grave suspicion. IT is further contended that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of assumption and the trial Court has to act as a mere post office and if the frivolous F. I. R. lodged against a person and charge-sheet has been submitted, the Court is not bond to frame charge against the accused in all cases. IT is further contended that if the impugned order is not set aside, in these circumstances, the statement of informant shall be rendered to be futile exercise and the accused cannot be convicted. IT is further contended that the lower revisional Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and has come to erroneous conclusion while relying upon the photostat copies of the documents produced in evidence.