(1.) THE applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge Hoshangabad in S.T. No.284/11, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 177, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were framed against the applicant.
(2.) THE facts related for the disposal of the present revision are that in the village Mehandwani Babai the lands bearing survey nos.181/1 & 182/2 were in the name of Santosh Kumar S/o Kishan Lal, R/o of Sirpur District Duliya. The landlord was residing at a distance place and name of the applicant was the same. There was only difference in the father's name therefore, the applicant got a mutation order in his favour and therefore, in the revenue records an authority was issued in the month of November 1992 and the applicant was declared to be a landlord of the aforesaid property. After sometime, he mortgaged the property before the State Bank of India Branch, Babai to obtain some loans also. An intimation was received by the actual landlord. He proceeded through his agent and ultimately, an FIR was lodged against the applicant. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no mutation application of the applicant was found. It is a mistake committed by the revenue authorities. The applicant did not take any loan from any bank. He did not apply for changing his name before the revenue authorities. It is nowhere mentioned in the order dated 22.12.1992 that the applicant had applied for the amendment in the revenue records. Under such circumstances, the applicant has not done any forgery and therefore, no offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC are made out against the applicant. Consequently, no other offences could be constituted against the applicant therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be discharged from the charges levelled against him.