SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, upsetting the order of discharge passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib dated July 19, 1983 and remanding the case to him with the direction that he should go into the evidence and then proceed with the case in accordance with law.

(2.) THE prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). Anandpur issued permits for the issue of cement to different persons who made a complaint to him that cement was not supplied to some of the permit holders because the quota had exhausted, on which the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) enquired and found that cement had been issued to some unauthorised persons, on the basis of bogus permit and then he got a case registered with the police through a complaint dated June 15, 1981. During the investigation of the case, Shiv Kumar, Raja Ram and Lekh Raj were interrogated and after investigation, challan was presented in the Court of the trial Magistrate only against Shiv Kumar. At the time of the framing of the charge, the trial Magistrate discharged Shiv Kumar accused vide his order dated July 19, 1983 against which the State went up in revision and the same was allowed by the Sessions Judge. Ropar, who remanded the case to the trial Magistrate with the direction as indicated above and hence the revision at the instance of Shiv Kumar.

(3.) THE learned counsel has contended that it is nobody's case that the petitioner had forged the signatures of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) because the permits did not contain the signature of the S. Gian Chand Sandhu, Sub-Divisional Officer (C). There is substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Unless their is an allegation of fraud, it would not amount to a forgery because one of the intents contemplated by Section 463, Indian Penal Code, is that false document must be made with the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The evidence, therefore, as it stands, does not make out any case that the petitioner had dishonestly or fraudulently issued the permits on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C). That being so, it cannot be said that he was responsible for making of false documents either.