HEMANTLATA ALIAS HEMLATA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22. 1. 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 178/1997, by which the Trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused-petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY recapitulated, the facts of the case are that petitioner sought employment on compassionate ground on the death of her deceased husband late Girikant Upadhyaya, who dies while in employment. Along with the application form, petitioner submitted a marks-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal bearing roll No. 256422. She was given compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Senior Geologist, Banswara. A doubt crept in regarding the genuineness of the marks sheet and the verification was sought from the said Board. On verification by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, it was revealed that in the High Secondary Examination, 1984 conducted by the said Board, Roll No. 256422 was allotted to one Prahlad Yadav but he remained absent in the examination. Thus, on verification, the marks sheet submitted by the petitioner along with the application for compassionate employment, was found to be forged. An FIR containing these facts was lodged with Police Station, Bhupalpura by complainant Shri N. S. Bohra, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur, on which the police register FIR No. 249/96 for the aforesaid offences and after investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner before the Trial Court on 22. 4. 97. Vide order dated 9. 9. 1998, the Trial Court directed the SHO concerned for further investigation in the light of the directions given in that order. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 22. 1. 2005, the Trial Court framed the aforesaid charges against the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) THUS, there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner connecting her with the aforesaid offences.