FAYYAJ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur dated 03.09.2013 in Session Trial No.164/2013.

(2.) The brief facts according to the applicant are that he is the Bhumiswami, is in possession of agricultural land bearing survey No.727 area 0.52 hectare situated at village Jaggakhedi Tehsil and District Mandsaur. The applicant had to stand as surety in a criminal case in City Session Court, Mumbai for one Rajkumar Kaknani and, therefore, somewhere in the year 2007, he applied for issuance of solvency certificate on his aforementioned land before the Tehsildar Mandsaur. After due enquiry, the solvency was issued in his name which was submitted before the City Session Court, Mumbai. In due course, the Court informed the Tehsildar, Mandsaur that since the applicant stood surety in the case pending before him, the land should not be allowed to be transferred or alienated till disposal of the case. On receiving such intimation from the Court, the Tehsildar proceeded to make an enquiry in respect of the land and sent a report to the City Session Court, Mumbai, which in its turn issued a letter to the present applicant and asked him to remain present before the Court. When the applicant appeared before the Court, he came to know that the land was mutated in name of one Nasir Khan who is co -accused in the present case. According to the present applicant, he never knew who is Nasir Khan. On further enquiry, it was discovered by the applicant that by a forged sale -deed one Ayyub Khan S/o Abdul Rahim got the land transferred in his name by a registered sale deed. However, no mutation took place on the basis of this sale deed. Subsequently, after solvency certificate was issued by forgering a certified copy of the order, the said Nasir Khan got the land mutated in his name. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police and a Crime No.442/2007 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 34 of IPC was registered against the present applicant along with other co -accused Nasir Khan S/o Ashraf Khan. After investigation, charge -sheet was filed and matter was committed to the Court of Session and made over to Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and the present applicant and co -accused Nasir Khan remained absconding before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) The case of the present applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that whatever act as alleged was done by absconding accused Nasir Khan. He has not done any act of cheating or forgery. He never sold the land in favour of Md. Ayyub Khan S/o Abdul Rahim and the co -accused Nasir Khan is not known to him.