Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3027 (ALL)

Kalpana Sahai v. Union of India and Others

2010-09-29

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
Shri Kant Tripathi, J.;- Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Gopal Chaturvedi and Mr. Satish Trivedi, Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. NI Jafri for the CBI and the learned AGA and perused the record. 3. In this case a forged letter of the Home Minister of India is alleged to have been used for transfer of a relative of the applicant. During the investigation, the CBI sought for the opinion of hand writing experts but they could not arrive at the conclusion that the signature of the Home Minister was made by the applicant or not. The witnesses Dharamveer Singh, Smt. Rama Rani and Smt. Renu Yadav who were working in the same College with the applicant, stated that they were acquainted with the hand writing and signature of the applicant and the writing i.e. signature of the Home Minister on the letter was in the hand writing of the applicant. 4. Mr. Chaturvedi submitted that when the hand writing experts' opinion was in favour of the applicant, the submission of the charge sheet on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses was not proper. It was next submitted that the witnesses could identify only the signature of the applicant but the forged letter does not contain the signature of the applicant, therefore, the provision of section 47 of the Evidence Act (in short "the Act") is not attracted in this case. It is alleged that the aforesaid witnesses had identified the writing of the applicant and not her signature, therefore, section 47 of the Act is fully attracted. Whatever allegations have been made and the materials collected during the investigation they have to be taken at their face value and if any case is made out the charge sheet cannot be quashed by making appreciation of the evidence . 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties , I do not fine it proper to interfere with the charge sheet, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties , I do not fine it proper to interfere with the charge sheet, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. However keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a lady, it is provided that if the applicant Smt. Kalpna Sahai appears and applies for bail within one month from today before the court concerned in Case Crime No. 1688 of 2008 arising out of FIR No. RC 2(S)/2007/SCUV/CBI/SCR.II/New Delhi under sectioins 420, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. CBI/SCU.V/SCR-II, New Delhi her bail prayer shall be considered and disposed of on the same day by the courts below. 7. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of one month or surrender of the applicant whichever is earlier the applicant shall not be arrested. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.