JASHWANT RATHORE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order Criminal Revision No. 284/2014 and 619/2014 are being disposed of, as the both arise from the same impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Anuppur in S.T. No. 75/2010 on 27/01/2014.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sujit Mishra filed an application under Section 319(1) and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge praying thereby to summon Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani as accused in the case. The session trial before the learned Additional Judge was related to the land survey No. 58/3(ka) area 0.57 acre, village Samatpur, District Anuppur. It was alleged that by a forged document, said land was sold by one Nirmala Goyanka to Shanti Jagwani and Leela Jagwani. In the documents Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani signed as attesting witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal & others vs. State of Haryana & others, AIR 2013 SC 3018, found that Session Court can take cognizance against any person and summons him as an accused at any stage after case is committed to the Session Court for trial.

(3.) FOLLOWING this principle and after going through the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Shankar Kumar Thakurta, the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 619/2014 and Jashvant Rathore, the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 284/2014 introduced one Smt. Gayatri Verma as bhumi swami in place of Nirmala Goyanka, the real bhumiswami and got the forged sale - deed executed and, accordingly, the revisionists in both the cases were arraigned as accused in the case and bailable warrant was issued against them.