Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1092 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Rajput v. State of M. P.

2006-09-12

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision challenging the order dated 2.9.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.310/2004, framing the charge against him for the offences under section 420,467 and 468 read with section 120-B of IPC. 2. In the year 1998 the applicant was posted as Sub Engineer in M.P. State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. It is said that on 31.7.1998, co-accused Munna @ Rajendra Shrivas, purporting himself to be Mata Prasad, applied for loan for repairs and construction of the house damaged during the earthquake occurred at Jabalpur on 22.5.1997. On such application purporting to be filed by Mata Prasad, an enquiry was made by the applicant in respect of the assessment of the loss and the amount of loan required for rehabilitation. The Federation then on the basis of his report sanctioned loan of Rs. 30,668/-. Complainant Rajesh Kahar the son of Mat a Prasad when received notice from the Federation about the recovery of the loan amount, lodged a report to the police contending that his father Mata Prasad had died long back and somebody had obtained loan purporting to be Mata Prasad on the basis of forged documents. On investigation, police found that co-accused Munna @ Rajendra Shrivas had forged the documents and submitted false application personating himself to be Mata Prasad, whereas in fact Mata Prasad had died in the year 1987. It was also found that the applicant who happened to be the Sub Engineer in the State Cooperative Housing Federation also conspired with the co-accused persons in commission of the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the applicant had in any manner joined or connived with the co-accused persons in commission of the aforesaid offence. He submits that there is no material on record to constitute the essential ingredients making out the offence under sections 420, 46Tand 468 of IPC against the applicant. 4. On taking into consideration the statements of complainant Rajesh and Manilal, recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC and the documents filed along with the charge sheet, prima facie there does not appear any material against the applicant to constitute the offence of cheating or forging any document. 4. On taking into consideration the statements of complainant Rajesh and Manilal, recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC and the documents filed along with the charge sheet, prima facie there does not appear any material against the applicant to constitute the offence of cheating or forging any document. Application for loan was received in the office of M.P. State Cooperative Housing Federation, Jabalpur and after making enquiry it was marked to technical section of the Federation for spot inspection. The application for loan was filed in the name of Mat a Prasad and was supported by the affidavit purported to be sworn by him. At the time of spot inspection some person purporting to be the Mata Prasad had remained present and signed the documents. From the spot inspection report submitted by the applicant (Sub Engineer) it appears that he had only verified the dimensions of the property and had calculated the amount of loss suffered during the earthquake. 5. On perusal of the material and the documents contained in the case diary, it does not appear that the applicant had knowledge about the deception committed by the co-accused by personating Mata Prasad. For making out an offence under section 415 of IPC, it is necessary that: (a) a person deceives any person; (b) He fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived- (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (c) He intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit anything which he would not do or omit if not deceived and which act etc. causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person. Prima facie there is nothing on record to show that applicant had deceived the Federation or had in any manner connived in the done by co-accused Though, it is true that in all cases of conspiracy, it is not possible to have direct evidence against the accused, but in the present case even the circumstantial evidence does not appear to lead to the inference that applicant was involved in the conspiracy. There is no evidence of forging any document intentionally or deliberately by the applicant. There appears total lack of mens-rea. 6. There is no evidence of forging any document intentionally or deliberately by the applicant. There appears total lack of mens-rea. 6. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find sufficient material or evidence in this case against the applicant to constitute the aforementioned charges for proceeding against him. 7. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 310/2004 of framing charges against the applicant under section 420, 467 and 468 read with section 120-B of IPC is set aside. Applicant is discharged. The trial Court is expected to proceed with the trial against the remaining accused expeditiously.