PAWAN KUMAR RAWAT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by and the dissatisfied with the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.89/2015, whereby the learned trial Judge has framed the charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

(2.) The facts necessary to be exposited for the adjudication of this criminal revision are given below:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that co-accused Ashish Garg in his disclosure statement has specifically denied that he had given the Poostika to co- accused Nayeemuddin. But, the applicant has given him Rin Poostika Nos. 943/0096096 and LK742437. The aforesaid Rin Poostikas are not the subject matter of the offence as per the F.I.R. of the case on the other hand, the subject matter of the offence is the Poostika that produced by co-accused Nayeemuddin in the Court. Thus, on this ground itself, charges against the applicant cannot be framed. It is also submitted by him that on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Ashish Garg, the Investigating Officer had not collected any incriminating material/evidence against the applicant in order to prove that he had given the aforestated Rin Poostika to co- accused Ashish Garg. It is a settled law that a person cannot be made an accused of a case only on the basis of disclosure statement of another accused. Thus, the charges against the applicant cannot be framed only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Ashish Garg. It is further submitted by him that all the three Poostikas are of the Patwari Halkas namely, Karoundi, Panti Badi (Gaddi) and Panti 11 and they have been forged as per evidence on record in the years 2008, 2009 and 2013. During that period and never ever the applicant had been posted in the aforestated Patwari Halkas. It is also submitted by him that the applicant having got the training of Patwari was posted vide order No.173/vk0dz0@08 dated 13.03.2015 in Patwari Halka Khadda, Tehsil Sirmour, District Rewa. Thereafter, vide order No.687/18/ Hkw-&vfHk-@LFkk- @2010 Rewa dated 15.06.2010 he was transferred from Patwari Halka Khadda to Patwari Halka Shivpurva, Tehsil Gudh. Thereafter, vide order No.1462/dys- Hkw- vfHk-@LFkk-@14 lh/kh dated 12.09.14 he was posted in Patwari Halka Pondi, Tehsil Kusmi, District Sidhi, where he is still posted. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, it is argued by the learned counsel that the applicant had not given the co-accused persons the Rin Poostikas, which were seized from their possession. These posting/transfer orders also lend credence to the innocence of the applicant. Thus, the learned Judge has framed the charges against the applicant without iota of legal evidence. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant deserves to be discharged of the charges with which he is charged.