Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1655 (MP)

Fayyaj Ahmad v. State of M. P.

2014-12-12

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER Verma, J. -- 1. This criminal revision under section 397 CrPC is directed against the order passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur dated 3.9.2013 in Session Trial No.164/2013. 2. The brief facts according to the applicant are that he is the Bhumiswami, is in possession of agricultural land bearing survey No.727 area 0.52 hectare situated at village Jaggakhedi Tahsil and District Mandsaur. The applicant had to stand as surety in a criminal case in City Session Court, Mumbai for one Rajkumar Kaknani and, therefore, somewhere in the year 2007, he applied for issuance of solvency certificate on his aforementioned land before the Tahsildar Mandsaur. After due enquiry, the solvency was issued in his name which was submitted before the City Session Court, Mumbai. In due course, the Court informed the Tahsildar, Mandsaur that since the applicant stood surety in the case pending before him, the land should not be allowed to be transferred or alienated till disposal of the case. On receiving such intimation from the Court, the Tahsildar proceeded to make an enquiry in respect of the land and sent a report to the City Session Court, Mumbai, which in its turn issued a letter to the present applicant and asked him to remain present before the Court. When the applicant appeared before the Court, he came to know that the land was mutated in name of one Nasir Khan who is co-accused in the present case. According to the present applicant, he never knew who is Nasir Khan. On further enquiry, it was discovered by the applicant that by a forged sale-deed one Ayyub Khan s/o Abdul Rahim got the land transferred in his name by a registered sale deed. However, no mutation took place on the basis of this sale deed. Subsequently, after solvency certificate was issued by forgering a certified copy of the order, the said Nasir Khan got the land mutated in his name. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police and a Crime No.442/2007 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 34 of IPC was registered against the present applicant along with other co-accused Nasir Khan s/o Ashraf Khan. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and matter was committed to the Court of Session and made over to Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and matter was committed to the Court of Session and made over to Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and the present applicant and co-accused Nasir Khan remained absconding before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. The case of the present applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that whatever act as alleged was done by absconding accused Nasir Khan. He has not done any act of cheating or forgery. He never sold the land in favour of Md. Ayyub Khan s/o Abdul Rahim and the co-accused Nasir Khan is not known to him. 4. I have gone through the copies of the charge-sheet filed by the applicant. The order dated 13.8.2007 passed by Tahsildar, Mandsaur may be referred to with some benefit. In this order, it was mentioned that on perusing the report of Patwari, it came out that the land was mutated in the name of co-accused Nasir Khan, on the basis of order passed on 5.2.2000. It also came out that said Nasir Khan filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer and filed a certified copy of order dated 5.2.2000. However, it was found that the certified copy of the order dated 5.2.2000 was forged and in the original order it was ordered that the land should be mutated in the name of Md. Ayyub Khan s/o Abdul Rahim in whose favour there was a sale deed purported to have been executed by the present applicant Fayyaj Ahmad s/o Mushtaq Ahmad. However, after going through the record and all the reports received by him, the learned Tahsildar ordered to maintain status-quo ante and ordered that the land be mutated in the name of original Bhoomiswami, the present applicant Fayyaj Ahmad, be entered into records. 5. Now, the question is whether the present applicant sold the land in question to one Md. Ayyub. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant argues that the present applicant signs in Urdu language, however, on the said sale deed his sign is in Hindi language. 5. Now, the question is whether the present applicant sold the land in question to one Md. Ayyub. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant argues that the present applicant signs in Urdu language, however, on the said sale deed his sign is in Hindi language. However, in the charge-sheet, the thumb impression of the present applicant was sent for examination to handwriting expert and examiner of questioned documents and according to his report, the thumb impression on the sale deed was that of the present applicant. Accordingly, if the land was sold by the present applicant to Md. Ayyub as back as in the year 1981 and then subsequently, he applied a solvency certificate in the year 1927, then it is a matter of evidence whether the said sale deed is forged one or a genuine one. In such a situation, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that allegations against the present applicant have no basis and they are false. The FIR on the face of it shows commission of a cognizable offence and as such no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In this view of the matter, I find that this revision is devoid on merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Mangesh Bhachawat for applicant; Deepak Rawal, Government Advocate for respondent/State.