HANSRAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22-9-09 passed by VII ASJ (Fast Track), Ujjain in Cr.R. No. 263/09, whereby the order dated 20-8-09 passed in Criminal Case No. 1266/07 by JMFC, Ujjain whereby charges were framed against the Petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. were modified and the charge framed under Section 420, IPC was quashed, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) In short, case of prosecution was that the Petitioner was working as Draftsman with Ujjain Development Authority (in short 'UDA'). It was alleged that between 17-1-07 to 14-5-07 Petitioner issued no objection certificates on behalf of UDA by forging the signature of the then Chief Executive Officer. It was also found that the challan form for obtaining No Objection Certificates were also filled in by the Petitioner. After investigation, challan was filed and charges were framed against the Petitioner under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. Against which a revision petition was filed which was allowed in part and charge framed under Section 420, IPC was quashed, while the order relating to framing of charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC was maintained, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued at length and submits that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court whereby order passed by learned JMFC so far as it relates to framing of charge under Sections 467 and 468, IPC is concerned, is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that even if entire story of the prosecution is accepted, then too, no case of forgery is made out against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the FSL report is silent on the point that Petitioner is involve in the alleged offence. It is submitted that Departmental Enquiry was also conducted, in which the charge of forgery was not found proved against the Petitioner. It is submitted that in absence of any mens rea or charge under Section 420, IPC, charge under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC cannot be framed. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration the documents submitted by the Petitioner while passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijay Satardekar,2009 1 SCC 721 wherein one of the Hon'ble Judge of Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e., where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. Other Hon'ble Judge of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same judgment has observed that in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. It was also observed that this appears to be the intention of the Legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi Case, , (2005) 1 SCC 568.