Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 178 (RAJ)

Fransis Jarj Devid v. State of Raj.

2009-01-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Fransis Jarj Devid, against the order dated December 12, 2005 of Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2005 discharging the accused non-petitioner from the charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC and quashed the order dated August 25, 2004 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 256 of 1999 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner filed a complaint against accused non-petitioner and two other persons stating therein that the degree and marks-sheet on the basis of which the accused non-petitioner entered in service are forged one and obtained from the Varansey Sanskrit University in the year 1989-1990, while the said University was closed in the year 1974. In this regard the complainant petitioner submitted copy of letter dated Feb. 26, 1996 and Shivira Magizine of March, 1995 in which the said University was declared forged after 1974. In the complaint it was further stated that in this regard the petitioner made complaint to the State Government, Police Department and other concerned officials but no effective action has been taken, therefore, he filed the aforesaid complaint. In the complaint it as further stated that the Institution in which the accused non-petitioner got service is an aided Institution and getting aid from the State Government. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation in the matter before the Police Station Civil Lines Ajmer. On aforesaid complaint the police registered FIR No. 80/1996 on April 12, 1996 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC and started investigation. After investigation the police submitted challan before the concerned Court for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence the accused non-petitioner was summoned. When the accused petitioner presented himself in person in the Court, the brief of the aforesaid charges were read and explained to him from which the accused denied and requested for trial so the offence was recorded. After taking cognizance of the offence the accused non-petitioner was summoned. When the accused petitioner presented himself in person in the Court, the brief of the aforesaid charges were read and explained to him from which the accused denied and requested for trial so the offence was recorded. During arguments the accused non-petitioner stated that the degree and marks-sheet was obtained by him from the recognized University and he was appointed through proper channel after verification of his documents by the RCCMDSE. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record found that on the basis of University Hand Book no mention of Varansey Sanskrit University is mentioned in the recognized Universities and there exist a name of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, earlier which was known by the name of Varansey Sanskrit University, which was closed on 14.12.1974 and its name was changed as Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Therefore after 1974 the degrees issued by the name of Varanasey Sanskrit University are forged, while the accused non-petitioner obtained degree in the year 1989-90 by the name of Varanasey Sanskrit University. In view of these facts and circumstances the trial Court vide its order dated August 25, 2004 found guilty to the accused non-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 and framed charges under the aforesaid sections. Against the order dated August 25, 2004 the accused non-petitioner submitted a revision petition before Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer. The Special Judge allowed the revision petition of the accused non-petitioner vide order dated December 12, 2005 and quashed the order of the trial Court dated August 25, 2004. Complainant-petitioner now preferred this revision petition before this Court. 3. Mr. K.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the accused non-petitioner cheated the government and the institution aided by the government by getting employment on the basis of the degree and marks-sheet which was obtained from the Varanasey Sanskrit University in the year 1989-1990, while the said University was closed in the year 1974. This fact is very much clear from the University Hand Book, government letter dated Feb. 26, 1996 and Shivira Magazine of March, 1995 submitted by the complainant in support of his complaint. This fact is very much clear from the University Hand Book, government letter dated Feb. 26, 1996 and Shivira Magazine of March, 1995 submitted by the complainant in support of his complaint. The trial Court on the basis of these documents find prima facie case against the accused non-petitioner and framed charge against the non-petitioner but the Special Judge allowed the revision filed by the accused non-petitioner and quashed the order of the trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondent Mr. Rahul Tewari opposed the arguments advanced by the Mr. K.N. Sharma. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor argued that the Judge Special Court rightly quashed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 framing charges against the accused respondent on the basis of the material available on record. This Court further in revisional power should not interfere with the order quashing the charge against the accused non-petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that the non-petitioner in the year 1989 obtained B.Ed. Degree through Correspondence Course from S. Brahmanand College in Sanskrit Subject from Varanasey Visvavidyalaya, which is also known as Varansey Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. The petitioner produced receipt of Brahmanand Sanskrit College Jaipur dated 21.11.1988 receipt No. 462 receiving Rs. 5478/- and asked him for giving appointment. The receipt and the documents cannot be said to be forged by the non-petitioner. The Special Judge in his judgment also took note of the fact that the Government of Rajasthan Education Group-III Department vide Circular dated 5.1.1990 gave recognition to degree of Varanasey Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi. The Director Primary and Secondary Education vide circular dated 19.7.1989 issued in pursuance to Circular dated 21.1.1977 by which the degree of Shiksha Sastri given by Varanasey Sanskrit Visva Vidyalaya, Varanasi equivalent to Siksha Sastri degree of University of Rajasthan. It may also be mentioned that the non-petitioner was granted permission by the College vide letter dated April 18, 1989 for appearing in the Siksa Sastri and thereafter time table was also received by the College and after passing the examination the Varanasi Vishvidyalaya issued the degree to the non-petitioner vide No. 8942003 and P.B. No. 9424 dated March 6, 1990. The non-petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the News paper to the college and thereafter got the appointment. The non-petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the News paper to the college and thereafter got the appointment. In this manner it can be said there is no question of fraud of cheating by the non-petitioner in getting appointment in the College. Since the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not considered all these aspect of the matter and the Special Judge in these circumstances quashed the order framing charge by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate against the non-petitioner. The order of the Special Judge in this manner cannot be aid to be perverse or illegal. 8. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of.