GHANASHYAM LENKA AND SOUBHAGYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 295 of 1997 has been filed challenging the order dated 10.4.1997 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 196 of 1990 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order taking cognizance. C.R.L.M.C. No. 17 of 2002 has been filed challenging the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack in the aforesaid G.R. Case dated 21.2.1994 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 A. 420, 109, 119, 120 B and 34 of the Penal Code.

(2.) SO far as the Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1997 is concerned. It appears that after the learned Magistrate took cognizance in respect of the offences mentioned above in the aforesaid G. R. Case the petitioner and one Zamil Ahmed Khan filed applications separately for recalling the order taking cognizance on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Keraia, reported in 1992 (5) OCR 66. The petitioner in his application for recalling the order taking cognizance stated that during the period from 1.4.1979 to 7.4.1982 he was working as the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar Tahasil, Cuttack and was entrusted with the C.L. R. Cases. Estate Abolition Cases Certifiate Cases as well as collection of revenue. According to him, the Tahasildar was directly in charge of the Lease, Encroachment, Mutation and Khasmahal Lease cases. It was pleaded before the learned S.D.J.M. that the petitioner was in no way involved in preparation of forged Ekpadia and the Tenancy Ledger. Since he was the Officer in charge of the Record Room, he had granted certified copies of the alleged forged Ekpadia and Tenancy Ledger in favour of some applicants and as Officer in charge of the record Room he was only required to certify the cost paid by the parties for the purpose of preparation of certified copy and therefore also not at all involved in the process of preparation of or comparison of certified copies. On the above grounds, the petitioner claimed before the learned Magistrate that he not being involved in any kind of forgery in the records of the Tahasil or in preparation of certified copies thereof, the order taking cognizance should be recalled.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Govt Advocate on the other hand submitted in view of certain observations made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order involvement of the petitioner in a conspiracy cannot be ruled out and at this stage of the proceeding it cannot be said that the petitioner is not at all involved in commission of the offences.