INDRAJITSINGH JOGINDERSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Applicant is accused no. 10 in Crime No. 131/2006 registered with Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur, presently being tried as Regular Criminal Case No. 3750 of 2006 before 10 th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant preferred application under Section 239 Cr. P. C. for discharge which application came to be rejected by learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.9.2009. Applicant then moved revision application under Section 397 Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur who, by order dated 21.8.2010 dismissed revision with costs imposed in the sum of Rs. 1000/ 2 upon the revision applicant. This is how the applicant has filed present application invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

(2.) Applicant has not filed copy of charge sheet along with his application. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that record is very bulky and it was virtually impossible for him to file copy of charge sheet. Prosecution case as is gathered from the application, affidavit in reply and during the course of argument is that one Rambhau Raghobaji Mahajan lodged complaint stating that one Smt Armiti Jahangir Cama owned land bearing Survey Number 5/1, 5/4, 6/1 admeasuring 3.92 hectares. Complainant Rambhau claimed that he is Secretary of Gruha Laxmi Gruha Nirman Society. Out of that land, Smt Cama, through her power of attorney holder Shamrao Thakare sold 3 acres of land to the said Housing Society and for remaining land, an agreement to sell was executed in the name of Society. Accused Mahendrakumar Badriprasad Rawat prepared forged document of agreement for sale of the year 1972 in the name of Black Diamond Housing Society Not only this, said Mahendrakumar on the pretext of sale deed dated 18.1.1974, obtained mutation entries in the City Survey records on the basis of forged document. Said Mahajan made complaint to the City Survey Officer who called for report from the Sub Registrars concerned. The Sub Registrar, Nagpur 1 and the Sub Registrar, Nagpur informed that there was no entry of sale deed in respect of the said land in the name of Mahendrakumar Rawat. Upon such reports, mutation entries obtained by Mahendrakumar in his name on the basis of bogus document of sale deed were cancelled by the City Survey Officer. During investigation, it was revealed that on the basis of forged document of sale, Mahindrakumar Rawat had executed Agreement of Development with N. Kumar Group, Kardhar Finance on 1.10.2003. During investigation, number of blank stamp papers and agreements to sell were seized from the office of N. Kumar. It is stated that present applicant deals in automobile business and sale purchase of plots along with co accused Surinder Singh Johar. It is further stated that present applicant is involved in preparing forged documents. He also signed as a witness to such documents dated 1.10.2003 and 20.6.2005. Applicant helped accused Mahendrakumar Rawat to open account with Bank of India (counsel for the applicant stated that it is wrongly written as Bank of Maharashtra in the memo of application).

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that from the totality of charge sheet, no offence can be said to be made out against the applicant. He contended that introducing somebody for the purpose of opening bank account, is not an offence. He submits that bank account bearing number 5545 was opened on 31.12.2002 whereas the alleged transactions are of the year 2003. Hence, according to him, there is no proximity with the opening of account and withdrawal of Rs. 10 lacs, as alleged. He further contends that there is nothing on record to show that applicant aided any of the co accused in preparing forged documents. He submits that merely because the applicant signed as a witness, he does not become accomplice or abettor.