SYED AHMAD ALI RAZVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Sayed Ahmad Ali Razvi and Sayed Irfan Ali Razvi filed this revision petition against the order dated April 20, 2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Ajmer in Case No. 262 of 1992 framing charge against them for the offence under sections 419, 420, 468 and 120 B IPC. As the revision petition was not traceable, the record of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 286 of 2000 was reconstituted vide order of this Court dated September 9, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 informed that Sayed Ahmad Ali Razvi, petitioner No. 1 died.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant non-petitioner Sayed Raze Ali Razvi on January 13, 1980 lodged FIR at Police Station Kotwali Ajmer, which was registered at No. 5 of 1980 under Section 420 IPC against the accused petitioners. As per this report the complainant submitted that his father Alhaz Sayed Hussain Ali Razvi Vakil Zavra died on November 25, 1967 at Ajmer. He was Kalid Bardar and Khidmad Gujar of Mazar Dargah Khawaza Saheb, Ajmer, hence he was known to various persons of India and also of foreign countries and they used to send him gifts by post. After the death of his father, he told his brother Molvi Sayed Ahmed Ali Razvi Vakil Zavra to send the information regarding the death of their father to all persons knowing to their father. His brother told him that the he had sent information to all the persons regarding the death of their father. It was mentioned that till today the persons are sending Nazrana through post and bank drafts. The complainant mentioned that he did not approve this method of extorting money from the persons and taking the same in the name of a dead person cheating the employees of the postal department and this was an illegal act. He came to know that this work was being done after the death of his father. When he talked to his brother Ahmed Ali then he refused and told that he never took such amount. In such a situation with intention to judge his truth-ness he sent some money orders from post office Bokaro Steel City, District Dhanbad and from its branch post offices in the name of his late father and from the above city also sent a demand draft of Rs. 500/- bearing number A 22094 dated 3.4.79 through registered post No. 192 of 4th of July, 1979. After that he made inquiries from the Bank of Baroda Ajmer Branch then he came to know that the above said draft was encashed on May 2, 1979 by the account holder No. 13948. This account holder was Shri Ahmed Ali. It was mentioned that the registered letter No. 333 dated 21.5.79 and Insured registered letter dated May 23, 1979 bearing No. 055 was got released from GPO Ajmer. The accused persons got released so many amounts. It was mentioned that he also went to the General Post Office, Ajmer and Manager Bank of Baroda, Station Road, Ajmer and Dhanbad Branch for taking action. It was also mentioned that Shri P.N. Bhargava, Asstt. Senior Superintendent and the Town Inspector, Post office has taken all the photostat copies from him of the documents on September 14, 1979 and September 6, 1979 and he get them noted all the things. It was then mentioned that during the inquiry by the persons of the post office, Ahmed Ali informed them the name of his son Mohamad Irfan Ali is also known by the name of Sayed Hussain Ali, which is totally wrong. The complainant has further mentioned that neither he or his sons and Ahmed Ali and his sons have right to have the same name like their father. Sayed Mohammed Irfan Ali was never known as Sayed Hussain Ali, which is clear from the documents, which the complainant attached with the report. It was mentioned that he had the receipts of money orders and other documents which he may produce at the appropriate time. It was mentioned that accused persons are using the name of his father in various departments and taking the money in the name of his late father Alhaz Sayed Hussain Ali Razvi Vakil Zavra. The police on the basis of above mentioned complaint registered a case against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 420 IPC. After thorough investigation, the police came to the conclusion that it is purely a civil dispute and no offence has been committed by the accused persons and hence submitted final report in the matter on March 17, 1980. Both the parties compromised the matter and submitted compromise deed before the police and also before the Court. After a period of 12 years, suddenly the trial Court took cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 120B IPC vide order dated November 19, 1992. The accused petitioners aggrieved against the order dated November 19, 1992 preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge Ajmer. The revision petition was heard by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases, Ajmer. The revisional Court vide order dated Feb. 23, 1996 while dismissing the revision petition directed the trial Court to hear the matter on the basis of the material available on record at the time of framing of charge. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both the sides framed charges against the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 419, 420, 468 and 120-B IPC vide order dated April 28, 2000. Against this order the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.