Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 834 (RAJ)

Govind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No. 97/2011 affirming the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bijoliya, district Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 159/2005 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station, Bijoliya on 9.10.2004 on the basis of a written complaint filed by the Tehsildar, Bijoliya. The allegation made in the F.I.R. was that one Chhitar prepared a forged allotment letter dated 25.9.1987 for the purpose of obtaining one Bigha land at Mauja Purohiton J Kheda. Ono the basis of the F.I.R. investigation commenced. It is alleged that during the course of inquiry, the aforesaid Chhitar informed the Investigating Officer that he has made payment of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner and had procured the aforesaid letter of allotment. The police, on the basis of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and co-accused Chlutar for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the police recovered certain rubber seals from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya claiming the same to be in the possession of the petitioner. The seizure was made on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner provided/used the said seals for preparing the forged letter of allotment for co-accused Chhitar. The seals so seized and the seals appended upon the forged letter of allotment in favour of Chhitar were not compared by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan and a report was received that it was not possible to hold that the seal impressions on the disputed document were similar to the rubber seals recovered from the office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya. The Investigating Officer did not procure any opinion of the Handwriting Expert regarding the signatures and the writings on the aforesaid document having been appended by the petitioner. Be that as it may, on the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioner challenged the order framing charge by filing a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court has also affirmed the order framing charges. Be that as it may, on the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioner challenged the order framing charge by filing a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court has also affirmed the order framing charges. It is in these circumstances that the instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred before this Court seeking quashing of the charges and all the subsequent proceedings against him pending in the Court below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material/ legally admissible evidence on record of the case for showing that the petitioner either forged the letter of allotment in question or connived for forging the letter in question. He submits that the charges have been framed against the petitioner without existence of any legal and admissible evidence and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the forged letter was prepared in the Office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya and since the petitioner was having access to all the seals etc. and it can be assumed that the petitioner was the person responsible for the preparation of the forged document and providing the same to co-accused Chhitar. He submits that the witness Bhanwar Lal Dhakad has stated that Chhitar took a loan of Rs. 3,000/- form him stating that he had to give the said money to the petitioner for procuring the Patta in question and thereafter the petitioner prepared the forged Patta and gave the same to Chhitar. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this statement of Chhitar is an extra judicial confession, in which the part played by the petitioner has been revealed as being the person who provided the forged document to the co-accused Chhitar. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned framing charges against the petitioner does not call for any interference. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after having gone through the impugned order and the record, it is not in dispute that there is no direct evidence available on record for the purpose of holding that the petitioner forged, or provided forged Patta, to the co-accused Chhitar. The seals, which have been recovered from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya, have not been found tallying with the seals appended on the forged Patta. 7. The seals, which have been recovered from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya, have not been found tallying with the seals appended on the forged Patta. 7. That apart, the writings on the Patta have not been compared with the handwriting of the petitioner and, therefore, there is no legally admissible evidence on record by which it can be said that the petitioner was the person who prepared the Patta in question. 8. The only material, on which the prosecution relies, is the statement of Chhitar made to witness Bhanwar Lal. The said statement, at the best, can be said to be an extra judicial confession, but an extra judicial confession made by a co-accused cannot be said to be an admissible piece of evidence against other person even for the purpose of framing charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hari Cliaran Knrmi v. State, AIR 1964 SC 1184 , has held that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be made the basis for framing charges against the other accused because the same is not a piece of evidence v 'within the meaning of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that in absences of the existence of any legally admissible evidence against the petitioner on record, the impugned order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the learned trial Court framing charges against the petitioner, as affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 9.2.2012, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds the impugned orders dated 9.2.2012 and 5.7.2011 passed by the learned Revisional Court and the trial Court respectively, are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******