GAGAN PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision application takes exception to the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Special and Additional Sessions Judge, District Shivpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 56/2012, whereby the application filed by the present applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking discharge from the offences alleged against him punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of IPC has been dismissed.

(2.) The prosecution story which has led to filing of the present revision application is that in the year 2008, an advertisement was published for the post of Patwari in which the applicant participated and was selected and subsequently, appointed on the post of Patwari. One of the conditions in the advertisement was that the applicant must possess a Diploma relating to Computer Education. In the year 2010, while confirming the veracity of the Diploma in Computers, the respondent contacted the University from which the applicant had procured the alleged Diploma. However, while performing such exercise, it was found that the Diploma possessed by the applicant is a forged one. Thereafter, the Police registered a criminal case against the applicant under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of IPC.

(3.) The applicant has approached this Court on the premise that the trial initiated against him is bad in law. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the trial Court has erroneously framed charges against him even though no ingredients of offences charged against him are made out. It was also contended that the applicant has not cheated anybody and is not involved in forging of the Computer Diploma. The applicant also pleaded ignorance and contended that it was not within the knowledge of the applicant that the alleged document is a forged one and mere intendment to cheat or commit forgery is not an offence under Indian Penal Code. Further, it was submitted that preparation to commit an attempt to make offence is not punishable under Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, 1979 AIR(SC) 366, wherein it was held that the Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution. Lastly, it was contended that there is no material on record to implicate the applicant.