Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 747 (MP)

Gulam Murfza Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-07-20

P.K.JAISWAL, T.K.KAUSHAL

body2015
ORDER 1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 3.7.2013 of Special Judge, Indore (M.P.) (Prevention of Corruption Act), 1988, in Special Case No.6/2008 framing the charge under sections 120B, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. According to prosecution on 17.4.1998, the petitioner and co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and committed cheating and forgery to make the certificate of income of co-accused persons. The petitioner was working as a reader to the Tehsildar at the relevant time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution did not file the charge-sheet against the Tahsildar-Manorama Koshti with whom the petitioner was working as a ‘Reader’ though she has signed the income certificate of the co-accused. The State has declined the sanction of prosecution against her. Crux of the allegation against the present petitioner is that he is responsible for forgery on the income certificate and for the interpolation in the date ‘17’ by overwriting and he made ‘13’ in place of ‘17’ and managed the issuance of certificate to be on 13.4.1998. 4. Per contra, learned Government counsel submits that trial Court has committed no error because whatever has averred by the petitioner is a matter of fact and can be established and decided after evidence during trial. 5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not attached proper weightage to the handwriting expert report which has been filed in the chargesheet as opinion two of the State examiner dated 29.10.2007 which clearly states that the added stroke to alter the original figures of date in question writings, no definite opinion can be expressed for common authorship with the standard writing of the petitioner. This is an official document produced by the prosecution itself. Such handwriting expert report of State examiner of questioned documents of Government of Madhya Pradesh is admissible and reliable at its face value. 6. In our considered opinion, the trial Court has not dealt with the opinion of handwriting expert report in a right perspective. Handwriting report has created a doubt whether petitioner is responsible for the interpolation of date from 17 to 13 on the document or not ? 7. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 3.7.2013 in respect of the present petitioner is set aside. Handwriting report has created a doubt whether petitioner is responsible for the interpolation of date from 17 to 13 on the document or not ? 7. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 3.7.2013 in respect of the present petitioner is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the matter of framing of charge of the petitioner afresh according to law.