Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1154 (MP)

Ram Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-09-23

M.K.MUDGAL

body2013
JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. 1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge Guna in Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 2012 setting-aside the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Guna in Cr. Case No. 419 of 2011 and remanding it to the Court of JMFC and directing to try the case where from, the petitioner-accused was acquitted under Sections 419, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the ground that the complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure was not filed by the concerned Court against the petitioner-accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has committed a mistake in remanding the case and setting aside the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Guna in Criminal Case 1774/2003 whereby the learned trial Court did not take cognizance of the offences as the complaint was not filed by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. The Counsel further submits that as per prosecution story, the documents related to the bail papers were submitted by the petitioner before the Court of JMFC Guna (Shri Lalaram Meena) for furnishing the bail of the accused Kamlesh and on being inquired by the Court, it was revealed that the petitioner Ram Singh was furnishing the bail in the name of Ganesh Ram and the documents were also submitted before the Court in his name i.e. Ganesh Ram. The learned counsel further contends that in view of the facts, the Court should have filed the complaint as per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. since the alleged forged and fabricated documents were produced before the Court. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Others Vs. Meenakshi Marwah AIR 2005 SC 2119 has contended that the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2012 be set aside and the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class be restored. 2. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Others Vs. Meenakshi Marwah AIR 2005 SC 2119 has contended that the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2012 be set aside and the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class be restored. 2. Refuting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the documents produced before the Court relating to bail papers were got prepared out side the Court and when produced, they were fake and forged. Besides, the act of fabrication in documents was not performed in the Court after having been filed in the court. 3. Arguments were heard and considered the rival contentions. 4. On perusal of the judgments of the learned courts below, it becomes clear that the Criminal Case No. 205/99 was pending before the court of JMFC Guna against the accused Kamlesh. The said petitioner furnished the bail papers and documents before the court in the name of Ganesh Ram. On inquiry, it was found that the bail papers and documents produced by the petitioner/accused in the name of Ganesh Ram were fake whereas the petitioner was not Ganesh Ram but he was Ram Singh. Thus, it is clear that the bail papers and documents in the name of Ganesh Ram produced by the petitioner before the court were already prepared before submitting them to the court. No act of fabrication has been performed in the documents after their having been produced before the court. The provision of Section 195(i)(b) of the Cr.P.C. has been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cited judgment and the Supreme Court has held in para 25 as under:- Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court I.e. during the time when the document was in custodial legis. 5. Considering the cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is concluded that the impugned order of the appellate court is justified. In view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, there was no need for the Court to file complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the petitioner/accused. 5. Considering the cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is concluded that the impugned order of the appellate court is justified. In view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, there was no need for the Court to file complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the petitioner/accused. Hence affirming the impugned order, the revision petition filed by the petitioner having no substance is hereby dismissed. 6. Affirming the impugned order, this petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned.