Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 711 (GAU)

Md. Mudasir Hussain v. State of Assam

2012-06-07

I.A.ANSARI

body2012
With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioner, who is accused in Jalukbari Police Station Case No.101/2001 (GR Case No.1691/2001) under Sections 468/471/420/34 IPC, has sought for quashing of the charge-sheet, which has been submitted against him seeking his prosecution under the said penal provisions. 2. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Ms. B. Saikia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. While considering the present application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., what needs to be noted is that the accused-petitioner, as a student of Nagaon ADP College, submitted, by means of arepresentation, to the Gauhati University, his mark-sheets for B.Sc Part-I and Part-II examinations with the complaint that since the aggregate of the marks, obtained by the accused-petitioner in B.Sc Part-I examination, had been wrongly calculated, the same be corrected. However, when the said two mark-sheets, which the accused-petitioner had allegedly submitted to the University concerned, were examined, it was found that the mark-sheet, for B.Sc Part-II examination, was a forged one. An order was accordingly made by the University concerned declaring the said mark-sheet, i.e., the accused-petitioner’s mark-sheet for B.Sc Part-II, 2000, as forged. When the accused-petitioner came to collect the corrected mark-sheet from the University concerned, he was caught by the employees of the University and was handed over to the police, at Jalukbari Police Station, along with a First Information Report (in short, FIR) lodged in this regard. Based on the said FIR, Jalukbari Police Station Case No.101/2001 aforementioned was registered and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet, as indicated above, has been filed against the accused-petitioner. 4. One of the chief grievances, as expressed by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, is that it is the Principal, ADP College, Nagaon, who had given the mark-sheet, in question, to the accused-petitioner, but he was not examined as a witness by the police and, secondly, even if one of the mark-sheets was found to be forged, the accused-petitioner ought not to have been fastened with the liability of criminal prosecution inasmuch as he iscompletely innocent and the charge-sheet needs to be, therefore, set aside and quashed. 5. 5. Considering the fact that it is the case of the accused-petitioner that it was the Principal of the said College, who had handed over the mark-sheets to the accused-petitioner, and the said Principal is, therefore, answerable if one of the mark-sheets has been found to be forged, the fact remains that the question as to whether it was the Principal, who had handed over the mark-sheet, in question, to the accused-petitioner or not, is a question of fact, which, as a defence, the accused-petitioner may be required to prove or probablise. This apart, even if the Principal of the said College is treated as a material witness, the omission, on the part of the Investigating Agency, to examine the said Principal or their omission to mention his name, in the charge-sheet, would not, automatically, lead this Court to set aside and quash the charge-sheet inasmuch as prosecution, if need be, can produce the Principal of the said College as a witness. The Court, if it considers calling of the Principal of the said College necessary for a just decision of the case, can also call him as a witness by taking recourse to Section 311 Cr.PC and even the accused-petitioner may, if required, call the said Principal as a witness or make application to the trial Court, if the trial takes place, to call the said Principal, as a witness, in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision, in the case, in exercise of this Court’s power under Section 311 Cr.PC. 6. In the circumstances, indicated above, quashing of the charge-sheet would be premature, when the materials, collected duringinvestigation, otherwise, prima facie disclose commission of offence of forgery in respect of the mark-sheet, which the accused-petitioner allegedly submitted to the University concerned seeking correction of the aggregate marks in the said mark-sheet. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference with the charge-sheet in exercise of this Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.PC. 8. This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 9. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference with the charge-sheet in exercise of this Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.PC. 8. This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 9. Before parting with this revision, it is, however, made clear that whatever observations have been made above are in the context of quashing of the charge-sheet and, hence, the same would not have any bearing at the stage of consideration of charge in the trial Court and the learned trial Court shall, therefore, consider the case, in question, in accordance with law without taking any help or support from the observations, which have been made above by this Court in a matter relating to quashing of charge-sheet. 10. In order to expedite the process of disposal of the case, it is hereby directed that the accused-petitioner shall appear, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, in connection with the case aforementioned, on 27.06.2012. 11. Send back the LCR. _____________