BASANT KUMAR RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant accused has preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2012, (Ann. A-1) passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 558/2011 whereby charges of Section 120-B, 467 and 468 of IPC were framed against him.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 24.11.2009 at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal an First Information Report as Crime No. 429/2009 for the offence of Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC was registered against one Ku. Akansha Bajpai, D/o Gayacharan Bajpai. As per averments of such FIR, the complaisant M.S. Patel, A.S.I. Police posted at Gandhi Nagar Bhopal received a letter of Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalya from the office of SHO, Police Gandhi Nagar for holding the enquiry regarding the mark sheet of said Ku. Akansha Bajpai submitted by her in the Counselling of P.E.P.T. 2009. In the course of such enquiry by the said Police Officer, he interrogated Shri Pankaj Jain, Counselling Incharge, so also Shri B.K. Sethi, the Secretary of R.G.V.V. and found such mark sheet of Ku. Akansha was false and fabricated, on which aforesaid FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. In the course of aforesaid enquiry and investigation it was revealed that Ku. Akanksha was failed in Class 12 th in three subjects while such mark sheet submitted in the University for the aforesaid counselling was showing her as passed out student.

(3.) The applicant's counsel after taking me through the papers of the charge sheet alongwith the averments of revision petition, the copies of the recorded depositions of the prosecution witnesses, (those are four in numbers), argued that the alleged mark sheet was neither found in possession of the present applicant nor was seized from his possession and there is no chain of evidence to show that the applicant was involved in any such conspiracy with the impugned mark sheet was fabricated with forgery. In the lack of such material ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC in the charge sheet, the charges framed against the applicant is not sustainable. In continuation he said that mere on account of signature of the applicant over the mark sheet or the report of the hand writing expert in that connection was not sufficient to frame the impugned charges. He also argued that even on taking into consideration the papers of the charge sheet as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of any of theaforesaid offences are not made out against the applicant and prayed for quashment of the aforesaid charge by admitting and allowing this revision. He also placed his reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Paramhansh Yadav & Sadanand Tripathi Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 955and of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1992 AIR(SC) 1815, so also of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra decided by the Apex Court on 24 th April 2008 in Appeal (Cri.) 744/2008.