RAN VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initially filed for a direction to the trial court to hold enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into the matter of forgery committed by opposite party no. 2 in respect of documents produced in the Court. However, subsequently prayer was amended wherein the order dated 19-12-2007 passed by learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial magistrate, Dhanbad in R. C. Case No. 11 (S)of 2003 was sought to be quashed as the learned Magistrate refused to hold enquiry in terms of Section 340 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Pramod Kumar singh (deceased) gave his Fardbeyan to the officer-in-charge of Seraidela Police Station on 3-10-2003 in presence of a Doctor and three witnesses stating therein that when he reached to his residence at about 9. 20 a. m. at Dhansar and was climbing to stair the accused Ramadhar Singh and Rajiv ranjan Singh came over there all on a sudden and thereafter Rajiv Ranjan Singh, on being instigated by Ramadhar Singh, fired shot at him causing injuries, upon which a case was registered but subsequently he died and in course of investigation, neither the Investigating Officer nor the Superintendent of Police doubted the genuineness of the dying declaration given by the deceased. Even then investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI and opposite party no. 2 took up the investigation of the case. In course of investigation, opposite party No. 2 filed an application on 13-9-2006 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for recording the statements of two accused, namely, Md. Ayub Khan and Kashmiri Khan under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure. On the same day statements of both the persons were recorded under section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter it was informed by the CBI to the special Magistrate at Dhanad through a petition rather a rejoinder filed on 13- 10-2006 that statements of the two accused persons recorded under Section 164 of the Code of criminal Procedure by the Metropolitan magistrate, Delhi shall be forwarded to the court directly but subsequently opposite party No. 2 (Investigating Officer) filed an application along with three sealed envelopes stating therein that the statements of the accused Md. Ayub Khan and Kashmiri khan and one witness Dr. D. Mishra recorded under Section 164 of the Code of criminal Procedure obtained from the Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi are being filed. Thereupon, on being applied, certified copy of the statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by kashmiri Khan was supplied which has been annexed as Annexure 2. Subsequently, when the copy of the statement made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure by Kashmiri Khan was supplied in terms of the provisions of Section 207 of the code of Criminal Procedure along with other police papers it was noted that some forgery has been done in the statemnt made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure by Kashmiri Khan. In this regard it was explained that in the certificate portion of the statement of Kashmiri Khan the name of the accused was noted as Md. Ayub khan which would be evident from annexure 2 whereas in other copy of the same statement of Kashmiri Khan (Annexure 5)supplied in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the words 'md. Ayub khan' were penned through and in that place 'kashmiri Khan' was substituted and this fact conclusively go to show that some forgery has been made but it is strange enough that the Court below rejected the prayer for holding enquiry in terms of Section 340 on the ground that documents in which alleged forgery was made was not in the custody of the Court rather document, i. e. , statement made under Section 164 of the Cbde of criminal Procedure by Kashmiri Khan was supplied by the CBI to the defence side though police papers are being supplied by the Court after the submission of the charge sheet and in fact those "documents were supplied to the accused persons by the Court and, therefore, it is absolutely wrong on the part of the Court to say that the documents were supplied to the accused by the CBI and hence the impugned order needs to be set aside as it was incumbent upon the magistrate to hold enquiry when it appears that an offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195 have been committed in relation to proceeding or in respect to the documents produced in the Court.

(3.) AS against this learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that on 13-9-2006 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi recorded the statements of two accused persons, namely, Kashmiri Khan and Md. Ayub khan and it would appear from the certificate portion of the statement of Md. Ayub khan which has been filed in this case, name of Md. Ayub Khan is there but in the certificate portion of the statement of Kashmiri khan his name was wrongly recorded as Md. Ayub Khan due to typographical error which would be evidently clear from the fact that the signatures of Kashmiri Khan do appear in his statement on the first page and the last page and similarly signatures of Md. Ayub Khan do appear over the statement made by him.