Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 341 (CHH)

MOTILAL KESHARWANI v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-10-21

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER 1. The aforesaid three petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by order dated 21st January, 2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 175/03 and 176/03, whereby the order framing charge of commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal Case No.2400/01, has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner-Motilal Kesharwani at the relevant time was posted and working as Mandi Secretary; petitioner -Rudrapal Pandey as Mandi Incharge and petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth as the Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Janjgir. On 11.1.2001, premises of Shyam Agro Milling, Banari was raided and in the inquiry excess stock of paddy and rice was found in respect of which there were no entries made in the stock register. It is alleged that at that time, other accused-Leeladhar, Proprietor of Shaym Agro Milling, Banari, failed to produce any valid document or authority for possession of excess quantity of paddy and rice. Later on, Leeladhar sought to produce certain receipt/saudapatrak said to be issued from the concerned Mandi, in order to substantiate that the excess quantity of rice and paddy seized from his premises was duly purchased by him in transaction of purchase of rice and paddy from Mandi from various agricultural producer. When inquiry was made, it was found that sauda-patrak were forged and without there being any transaction of sale, fake documents were prepared and then handed-over to co-accused Leeladhar. Initially when the FIR was lodged, petitioner-Motilal was also named as accused along with Leehdhar, Rudrapal and Gokul. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, by police of Police Station- Janjgir, in which, Leeladhar, Murli Manohar, Gokul Prasad, Nageshwar, Gopal Prasad and Rudrapal Pandey were made accused. As petitioner- Motilal apprehended his arrest in view of he being named in the FIR, he had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court. Vide order dated 27.6.2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1283/01, his application was allowed. He furnished bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. As petitioner- Motilal apprehended his arrest in view of he being named in the FIR, he had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court. Vide order dated 27.6.2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1283/01, his application was allowed. He furnished bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code, the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the matter and against each of the petitioners namely-Motilal, Rudrapal and Gopal, charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC were framed on the basis of material contained in the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, petitioners-Motilal and Rudrapal filed Criminal Revision No.176/03. Other petitioner-Gopal filed a separate petition registered as Criminal Revision No.175/03. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the learned revisional Court vide order dated 21st January, 2004 passed separately in Criminal Revision 175/03 and Criminal Revision No.176/03. These petitions arise out the order which has been passed by the revisional Court dismissing the revision and affirming the order framing charges by the Magistrate. 3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order framing charge and the dismissal of revision petition, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases, submitted that no case of framing charge against petitioner- Motilal is made out. His submission is that when, during inquiry, premises were raided and allegedly forged sauda-patraks were seized, inquiry was made under the directions of the Collector by a Food Officer, in which, no material was revealed against the petitioner, which would even remotely involve the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. However, when the FIR was lodged, petitioner- Motilal was named therein, but after investigation, while filing charge sheet, petitioner -Motilal was not charge-sheeted, because in the investigation, it was found that the petitioner Motilal was not involved in the criminal act of preparation of preparing forged sauda-patrak causing wrongful gain to Leeladhar and wrongful loss to the Mandi. However, when the FIR was lodged, petitioner- Motilal was named therein, but after investigation, while filing charge sheet, petitioner -Motilal was not charge-sheeted, because in the investigation, it was found that the petitioner Motilal was not involved in the criminal act of preparation of preparing forged sauda-patrak causing wrongful gain to Leeladhar and wrongful loss to the Mandi. Even then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without due application of mind, merely because he was named in the FIR, framed charges which is not supported by any material whatsoever and against specific report of the investigating officer that Motilal is only responsible for failure to exercise proper control and supervision over subordinate staff. He further submits that if the police has not charge sheeted petitioner Motilal, no cognizance could be taken against Motilal by the Court, much less framing of charges for alleged commission of offence. It has been submitted that the mode and manner of taking cognizance has been prescribed under Section 190 of the Code and except in the manner prescribed therein, no cognizance of commission of offence by Motilal could be taken. Further submission is that in the entire charge sheet, there is no material to warrant framing of charges. It is submitted that in the inquiry made by the Food Inspector D.K. Pasine, documents relating to which have been made part of the case diary all that is reflected is that the Inspectors, namely Gogul and Nageshwar had prepared forged sauda-patrak in favour of accused-Leeladhar. He further submits that there is no material to indicate any involvement of Motilal even with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC as there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that Motilal is also involved in the alleged conspiracy of preparing forged sauda-patrak without there being any transaction of sale and purchase of paddy and rice during relevant time in the Mandi. 4. As far as petitioner-Rudrapal Pandey is concerned, learned counsel submitted that Rudrapal is sought to be impleaded only on the basis of prerecorded statements of Nageshwar Kaushik Gokul Thawait, who have stated that they prepared forged sauda-patrak without there being any transaction of sale, on the dictates of Rudrapal, who asked them that they should prepare sauda-patrak in favour of Leeladhar, other co-accused. Learned counsel submits that those statements given by Negeshwar and Gokul are confession of other co-accused, in which Rudrapal has also been impleaded and therefore only on the basis of those confessions contained in the statements of those persons, no case subjecting the petitioner-Rudrapal to criminal trial is made out as only on that basis, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, he could not be convicted and even if such confession of those persons is proved, that by itself would not entail in his conviction. Learned counsel further submitted that the involvement of petitioner-Rudrapal on the basis of the statement given by Nageshwar Kaushik and Gokul that they had prepared sauda-patrak at the dictates of Rudrapal, is not at all reliable in view of an established circumstance of the case that petitioner-Rudrapal was member of the Surprise Checking Team and he was throughout along with the Suprise Checking Team when the premises of Leeladhar were raided. Therefore, there is no question of his involvement in preparation of allegedly forged sauda-patrak and the story of the prosecution that forged sauda-patrak were prepared at his dictates could not be made a basis to frame charges against him. 5. Submission on behalf of petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth is that he had no involvement in the alleged commission of offence, whereby it was alleged that forged sauda-patrak in favour of Leeladhar were prepared to cause wrongful gain to co-accused Leeladhar and wrongful loss to Mandi It is submitted that in the inquiry made by the Food Department and the investigation carried out by the investigating agency after the matter was directed to be inquired by the Food Department at the instance of the Collector, no material has come against petitioner- Gopal that he issued the disputed sauda-patrak in favour of Leeladhar so as to cause wrongful gain to Leeladhar and wrongful loss to the Mandi. He submits that merely because he, at the relevant time, was working as Inspector and issuing sauda-patrak could no be said to be involved as there is no material to show that he had also conspired along with accused persons towards issuance of forged Sauda-patrak in favour of Leeladhar. 6. He submits that merely because he, at the relevant time, was working as Inspector and issuing sauda-patrak could no be said to be involved as there is no material to show that he had also conspired along with accused persons towards issuance of forged Sauda-patrak in favour of Leeladhar. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that from the charge sheet, as filed by the police, the learned trial Court is justified in framing charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Magistrate is fully empowered to implead additional accused while framing charges on the basis of the material available on record, including those who have not been sent-up as accused to the Court at the time of filing of charge sheet. Her further submission is that a detailed inquiry was made by the Food Department and then a written report was lodged by Food Inspector-D.K. Pasine, which clearly shows that forged and fabricated sauda-patrak were issued by the Inspectors. Learned counsel for the State submits that in so far as petitioner -Motilal is concerned, he was having overall supervision and control of functions and affairs of the Mandi. The officers working under his control and supervision prepared sauda-patrak. Therefore, this is a strong circumstance, justifying his impleadment as accused and framing of charges against him. She further submits that all the petitioners have been charged of hatching conspiracy and the circumstances clearly make out a prima facie case that conspiracy was hatched to extend undue favour to Leeladhar, other co-accused by issuing the forged sauda-patrak. Learned counsel for the State submits that in so far as petitioner-Rudrapal is concerned, there is overwhelming material available against him in the charge sheet, which shows that in the inquiry held by the Food Inspector even prior to registration of criminal case, Nageshwar and Gokul Prasad in their statements stated that they issued sauda-patrak on the dictates of Rudrapal. She submits that those pre-recorded statements are admissible against Rudrapal and constitute sufficient material to frame charges against him. She submits that those pre-recorded statements are admissible against Rudrapal and constitute sufficient material to frame charges against him. In respect of petitioner- Gopal Prasad, it is submitted that he was also engaged in the work of issuance of sauda-patrak and he also stated in his pre-recorded statement, during the course of inquiry conducted by the Food Inspector, that he had been issuing sauda-patrak on the instructions of Rudrapal without actual verification of the quantity of rice/paddy under a given sale transaction and merely because the forged sauda-patrak are not alleged to be issued by him, he cannot be absolved at this stage and it would be a matter of inquiry during trial, but, prima facie, he is also involved in the conspiracy justifying framing of charges against him. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before examining the material contained in the charge- sheet, on the basis of which, charges have been framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against each of the petitioners, the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner-Motilal that in the absence of he being charge sheeted, no charges can be framed against him, needs to be answered. Section 190 of the Code makes provision with regard to cognizance of offence by Magistrate. Any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence in the three ways, which are : (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Cognizance of offence, in Section 190 of the Code relay means taking notice of the offence. Once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he "takes cognizance" of an offence and not of the offenders. Once the Magistrate takes such cognizance, it becomes his duty to find out who the offenders really are. If he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other persons are also involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. Once the Magistrate takes such cognizance, it becomes his duty to find out who the offenders really are. If he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other persons are also involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the Code, upon a report made by a police officer, he is not restricted to issue process only to the persons charge-sheeted by the police. The Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report and he can also summon those whose name are not mentioned in the charge-sheet, provided he finds sufficient evidence against them in police papers. Summoning of the additional accused is a part of the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid well settled principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Raghubans Pandey Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 1167, Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 58 and Joginder Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another (1979) 1 SCC 345. The aforesaid principle has been re-stated by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and another (2001) 6 SCC 670, wherein, relying upon the decision in the case of Raghubans Pandey AIR 1967 SC 1167 (supra) and examining the relevant provision contained in the Code, it was held : "6. In our view, from the facts stated above, it is clear that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C. would be applicable. Section 190 inter alia provides that "the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a police report of such facts which constitute an offence". As per this provision, the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not the offender. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing process, it is for the Magistrate to decide whether process should be issued against particular person/persons named in the charge- sheet and also not named therein. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is empowered to issue process to the accused. At the stage of issuing process, it is for the Magistrate to decide whether process should be issued against particular person/persons named in the charge- sheet and also not named therein. For that purpose, he is required to consider the FIR and the statements recorded by the police officer and other documents tendered along with charge-sheet. Further, upon receipt of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused by ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation by taking into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the police. At this stage, there is no question of application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Similar contention was negatived by this Court in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar by holding thus: (AIR p. 1169, para 9) "In our opinion, once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence." 7. Further, in the present case, there is no question of referring to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. That provision would come into operation in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence. In the present case, neither the Magistrate was holding enquiry as contemplated under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C. nor had the trial started. He was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 of taking cognizance of an offence and issuing process. In the present case, neither the Magistrate was holding enquiry as contemplated under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C. nor had the trial started. He was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 of taking cognizance of an offence and issuing process. There is no bar under Section 190 Cr.P.C. that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record, but his name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet." 9. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion deducible from the aforesaid decisions is that even if Motilal was not charge- sheeted, nothing prevented the Magistrate, who is fully empowered, to summon Motilal and frame charges against him, provided sufficient material is there for proceedings against him. It has to be borne in mind that the present is not a case relating to offences triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions. Therefore, the submission of learned senior counsel in that regard has to be rejected. 10. Learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that as far as petitioner-Motilal is concerned, there is no material contained in the charge sheet, which would even make out a prima facie case of framing charges against him. He submits that the documents which have been annexed along with the charge sheet pertaining to inquiry made by the Food Department and inquiry report prepared by the Food Officer, statements recorded therein, sauda patrak, distribution of powers and duties amongst the Officers and servants of Krishi Upaj Mandi, case diary statements and the opinion of the investigating agency, clearly show that the only allegation against petitioner-Motilal is that he failed to exercise proper supervision and control over his subordinate staff, which led to preparation of forged sauda-patrak by other accused persons. He submits that if the entire material placed in the charge sheet is proved by the prosecution, no case of commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 even with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC would be made out, because neither there is any material to show that petitioner-Motilal either prepared the aforesaid sauda-patrak nor is there any allegation that it was done at his behest. 11. 11. The documents which have been examined in the inquiry by the Food Officer, which has been annexed along with the charge sheet, show that when the premises of Leeladhar were raided, the stock register did not support the quantity of paddy and rice found upon physical verification. However, on the next date, the said co-accused - Leeladhar came out with certain sauda-patrak, which indicated that he had purchased rice and paddy from the Mandi premises. The genuineness of those sauda-patrak were inquired by the officer of the Food Department. The written report submitted by Food Inspector-D.K Pasine in the police station on 29.4.2001, which runs into 19 pages, does not show any involvement of petitioner- Motila1. The report neither shows that any of the forged sauda-patrak was issued at the instance of Motilal nor is there any material to show his conspiracy or connivance, on the contrary at page 12 of the report, all that has been alleged against Motilal is that he failed to exercise proper control over his subordinates and because of his incompetency and negligence, his subordinates succeeded in preparing forged sauda-patrak to extend undue favour to purchaser, Shyam Agro Milling, Banari. 12. Along with the charge sheet, a short inquiry report dated 16th January, 2001 of Food Inspector-D.K. Pasine with memo of seizure, panchnama and supardnama has also been placed on record. Neither in the said inquiry report nor in the statements of any of the persons including accused -Leeladhar, Negeshwar Kaushik Gokul Thawait and Gopal Prasad Bareth, anything has been stated to suggest that either the sauda - patrak was issued by Motilal or that he had any role to play in issuance of sauda-patrak. Memo of distribution of powers and functions dated 29.11.1999 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Krishi Vikas Board also does not state that the petitioner Motilal is entrusted the function to issue sauda-patrak. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded statements of D.K. Pasine, Omkar Yadu, P.C.R.Yadu, Abbas Quraishi and other persons. Except in the statement of D.K. Pasine, no other person has stated anything about Motilai. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded statements of D.K. Pasine, Omkar Yadu, P.C.R.Yadu, Abbas Quraishi and other persons. Except in the statement of D.K. Pasine, no other person has stated anything about Motilai. D.K. Pasine, in his case diary statement has stated that when the premises of Leeladhar was raided, excess stock was found and when inquiry was made by him, it was found that forged sauda- patrak was issued by Nageshwar and Gopal and they had stated in their statements that it was issued by them on the dictates of Motilal and Rudrapal. The said statement has been recorded on the basis of inquiry which was conducted by D.K. Pasine. However, in the inquiry which was conducted by D.K. Pasine, neither Gokul Thawait nor Negeshwar in their statements in that inquiry stated that the alleged forged sauda-patrak from Book No.8, Sr. No.701 to 715 were issued at the direction or instructions of petitioner Motilai. Statement ofNageshwar recorded during inquiry by the Food Oepartment and placed along with the charge sheet only shows that general instructions was issued by petitioner-Motilal to issue saud a- patrak. Gokul Prasad, who is alleged to have issued forged sauda-patrak also does not say in his statement that the forged sauda-patrk of Book No.8 were issued at the dictate or instructions of petitioner- Motilai. D.K. Pasine in his report dated 19.4.2001, on the basis of which FIR was registered, stated that petitioner-Motilal failed to exercise proper control and supervision. The police in its final report, therefore, only alleged that Motilal was responsible to the extent that he failed to exercise proper supervision and control. The police, therefore, did not implead Motilal as accused at the time of submitting charge sheet though he was initially named in the FIR. Therefore, the entire material in the charge sheet, even if proved up to the hilt, does not make out any involvement of petitioner-Motilal in the alleged commission of offence and it cannot be said that the material brought in the charge-sheet are sufficient to proceed against Motilal and subject him to criminal trial. It is not even a case of strong suspicion against Motilal so as to warrant framing of charge against him and subject him to the agony and rigour of a criminal trial. 13. It is not even a case of strong suspicion against Motilal so as to warrant framing of charge against him and subject him to the agony and rigour of a criminal trial. 13. As far as case of petitioner-Rudrapal is concerned, the material on record brought in the charge sheet shows that in the inquiry which was held by the Food department under the directions of the Collector and conducted by the Food Inspector-D.K. Pasine, both Gokul and Nageshwar who are alleged to have issued forged sauda patrak, have stated that they had issued the allegedly forged sauda-patrak at the dictates of Rudrapai. The statements of Gokul and Nageshwar recorded during the inquiry by Food Inspector-D.K. Pasine, much prior to the lodging of FIR, are in the nature of extrajudicial confession. In those statements, they have stated the facts incriminating them that they had issued sauda- patrak and that those sauda- patrak were issued at the dictates of Rudrapai. In the written report which has been lodged by D.K. Pasine, referred to above, who conducted the inquiry and recorded statements of Nageshwar and Gokul, it has also been reported by him that in the inquiry made by him, it was found that the forged sauda- patrak was issued by Nageshwar and Gokul on the dictates of Rudrapal. The statements of Nageshwar recorded during the course of inquiry at one place states that general instructions were issued by Motilal and Rudrapal to him without there being any written order for discharging duties for issuance of sauda-patrak. However, at the other place of his statement, he specifically alleged that disputed and allegedly forged sauda-patrak were issued at the instructions of Rudrapal and even the sauda-patrak Book No.5, 6, 7, 8 were issued to him by Rudarpal. Gokul Prasad has stated that sauda patrak Book were issued by Rudrapal and such books were kept in the custody under lock and key by Rudrapal. He has also stated that the allegedly forged sauda- patrak of Book No.8 was issued by him at the instance of Rudrapal Pandey. It is relevant to note that two accused persons namely Gokul Prasad and Nageshwar have given their statements during the inquiry conducted by the Food Inspector, on the basis of which, the Food Inspector after having completed inquiry, reported the matter to the police under a written report running in 19 pages. It is relevant to note that two accused persons namely Gokul Prasad and Nageshwar have given their statements during the inquiry conducted by the Food Inspector, on the basis of which, the Food Inspector after having completed inquiry, reported the matter to the police under a written report running in 19 pages. The charge sheet also contains the statement of Rudrapal recorded during inquiry conducted by the Food Department. He has stated that his responsibility and work involves supervision of sale and purchase of paddy brought in the Mandi premises and also getting the agreement and sauda-patrak prepared and issued by Nageshwar and Gokul and others. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that these prerecorded confessional statements are not admissible in evidence, cannot be accepted. Provision contained in Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deal with confession. The law regarding confession was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SCC 230. In para-68 to 72 of its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to number of its earlier judgments, which is extracted as below: "68. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram it was held: (SCC p. 192, para 19) "19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness will, gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witness who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility." It was further observed: (SCC p. 192, para 20) "20. If the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law." 69. In Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab this Court opined: (SCC pp. 525-26, para 23) "23. Extra-judicial confession, as is well known, can form the basis of a conviction. By way of abundant caution, however, the court may look for some corroboration. Extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto be termed to be tainted. An extra- judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved can be relied upon by the courts." (emphasis supplied) 70. In Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi this Court held: (SCC p. 482, para 24) "A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt." (SCC also Ram Khilari v. State of Rajasthan and Namala Subba Rao v. State of A.P.) 71. It will also be relevant to consider State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram wherein this Court observed: (SCC p. 262, para 14) "14. ..... It will also be relevant to consider State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram wherein this Court observed: (SCC p. 262, para 14) "14. ..... There was nothing to show that he had reasons to confide in them. The evidence appeared to be unnatural and unbelievable. The High Court observed that evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and though it is possible to base a conviction on the basis of an extra-judicial confession, the confessional evidence must be proved like any other fact and the value thereof depended upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it was made." 72. Recently, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court held: (SCC p. 545, para 31) "31. The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession must be judged in the fact situation obtaining in each case. It would depend not only on the nature of the circumstances but also the time when the confession had been made and the credibility of the witness who testifies thereto." The Supreme Court then observed: "87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; (iii) corroboration." 15. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down, this Court is unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the material statements which have been brought on record, wherein another' co-accused person stated incriminating facts about themsleves are not admissible and on that basis no charges can be framed. Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the extrajudicial confession and the involvement of the petitioner Rudrapal, is a matter which is required to be thrashed during the course of trial, upon proof of facts alleged by the prosecution by leading oral and documentary evidence. However this Court if of the considered opinion that a case for proceeding against Rudrapal is made out justifying framing of charges I against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of the IPC. However this Court if of the considered opinion that a case for proceeding against Rudrapal is made out justifying framing of charges I against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of the IPC. The submission that in view of the circumstances that Rudrapal was member of Surprise Checking Team, therefore, prosecution story that allegedly forged sauda-patrak were issued on his dictates is improbable, is a matter relating to appreciation of material available on record, which cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. What has to be seen at the time of framing of charges is as to whether a case for proceeding for trial is made out and not whether the case of conviction is made out, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.B. Johri and Ors. (2000) 1 JLJ 12 and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhim Raj Bijjaya and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 76. Therefore this Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for, the petitioner that subjecting petitioner- Rudrapal to prosecution by framing charges would be an abuse of the process of law. 16. As far as petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth is concerned, this Court finds that the material brought in the charge sheet is not sufficient for proceeding against him and framing charge. In the written report lodged by D.K. Pasine, Food Inspector, though, specific allegation have been made against other accused persons, it has not been stated anywhere as to how Gopal Prasad is involved in the issuance of alleged forged sauda-patrak, issued in favour of co-accused Leeladhar causing wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to Mandi. Though during inquiry, it has come on record that he was also one of the persons involved in the working of issuance of sauda- patrak, there is no material to show that Gopal Prasad had either issued the disputed sauda-patrak which are alleged to be forged. The documents relating to inquiry made by the Food Department, which led to filing of police report, does not show any iota of evidence that the disputed and allegedly forged sauda-patrak issued in the name of Leeladjar were issued by Gopal Prasad. The documents relating to inquiry made by the Food Department, which led to filing of police report, does not show any iota of evidence that the disputed and allegedly forged sauda-patrak issued in the name of Leeladjar were issued by Gopal Prasad. Though Gopal Prasad, in his statement recorded during the inquiry by the Food Department, has stated that he was also involved in issuance of sauda-patrak and he had been issuing those sauda-patrak without physical verification of the quantity of paddy/rice, there is nothing in his statement or in the statement of other persons to say that the sauda-patrak which are alleged to be forged, issued in the name of Leeladhar, were acutely issued by him or that he had played any rode in issuance of those sauda-patrak. His statement only shows that he used to issue sauda-patrak without proper verification on the instructions of Rudrapal Pandey, Mandi In-charge. However, there is no material in the charge sheet to show that sauda-patrak which are issued by Gopal Prasad, upon inquiry were found to be forged and without there being any transaction of sale and purchase, he extended wrongful gain to the any other person much less Leeladahar or wrongful loss caused to the Mandi. Therefore, on the basis of the material which has been brought on record, it cannot be said that sufficient ground for proceedings against petitioner- Gopal Prasad is made out showing his involvement in the conspiracy in which forged sauda-patrak were prepared in the name of Leeladhar, other co-accused. 17. In the result, M.Cr.C. No.1040/04 preferred by petitioner-Motilal Kesharwani and M.Cr.C. No.1120/04 preferred by petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth are allowed and the charges framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against them are quashed. As far as framing of charges against Rudrapal Pandey is concerned, no ground warranting interference is made out in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. M.Cr.C.No.1135/04, preferred by petitioner-Rudrapal Pandey is therefore dismissed. 18. Impugned order dated 21st January, 2004 passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.176/03 in so far as it dismisses revisions of petitioner-Motilal Kesharwani, is declared illegal, but sustained in respect of petitioner-Rudrapal Pandey. Impugned order dated 21st January, 2004 passed in Criminal Revision No.175/03 in respect of the petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth, is hereby declared illegal and set aside. 19. Impugned order dated 21st January, 2004 passed in Criminal Revision No.175/03 in respect of the petitioner-Gopal Prasad Bareth, is hereby declared illegal and set aside. 19. The records of the Court below shall be remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir forthwith for further progress of trial as against the accused except petitioners-Motilal Kesharwani and Gopal Prasad Bareth. Petition Partly Allowed.