NARSINGHDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned order dated 5.1.2019 passed by Fifth Additional Session Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in S. T. No.113/18 whereby charges under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of the IPC have been framed against the appli- cant.

(2.) Facts of the case in narrow compass are that the com- plainant / objector Prabhat Agrawal filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C . before the CJM, Chhatarpur and on the direction of the CJM, at Police station Chhatarpur, FIR no.38/17 for commission of of- fence punishable under Sections 120B , 197 , 198 , 201 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 201 of the IPC was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the CJM, Chhatarpur who on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session, Chhatarpur where learned 5 th Additional Session Judge has framed the aforesaid charges. The allegations lev- elled against the applicant are that the applicant and the deceased Kishorilal who was the father of the objector Prabhat Agrawal were real brothers and the deceased Kishorilal was the sole proprietor of Chhatarpur Medical Store and got the drug licence in his name and the applicant has no concerned with the drug business of the deceased Kishorilal. The said Kishorilal also got the firm registered in the Sales Tax Department in his name. The deceased Kishorilal died on 10.6.1981. Thereafter, the applicant on the basis of submitting false statement with the connivance of the drug licence authority, got the licence trans- ferred and renewed in his name in the year 1984, stating that Chhatarpur Medical Store was a Partnership Firm of the applicant and the deceased Kishorilal and after the death of Kishorilal, he is surviving sole partner and thereafter, he has been running business on the strength of aforesaid fabricated and forged licence. While the applicant himself had taken plea in an earlier criminal case no. 109/85 that he has no concerned with the aforesaid firm and on account of this plea took through Advocate by application dated 22.11.2001, he was discharged by order dated 8.3.2002 by the Magistrate concerned. Complainant / ob- jector Prabhat Agrawal on 6.5.2015 made a complaint to the Commis- sioner Sagar and on his direction, inquiry was conducted by the Drug In- spector, Chhatarpur who submitted his report on 8.6.2015 and in the in- quiry it was revealed that the applicant is running the medical store on the basis of the licence which got it renewed on the basis of false infor- mation submitted by him.

(3.) The applicant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that from the allegations and the material collected during the investigation, prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant and learned trial court has committed grave legal error. The applicant has not cheated anybody and there is no averment of any public officer who renewed the licence that the applicant deceived to them. In the record there is no single document which can be said to be forged one.