Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 478 (MP)

Bablu Nanda v. State of M. P.

2016-06-20

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. This revision under section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been filed against the order dated 9.1.2014, passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Sessions Trial No.12/2013. framing the charges against the applicant/accused for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 485, 486, 487 and 488 of IPC and section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.4.2012, the complainant lodged an FIR against the applicant along with other co-accused persons that they sold the goods marked with a counterfeit property. It is further alleged that the co-accused was dealing with sale of engine/gear oil of branded companies like Servo Super, Hero Honda and M-2 and Castrol India. In this manner, the applicant has affixed and impressed upon the same and packaged other receptacle in which such goods are contained by making a false mark upon the receptacle containing goods. In this manner, the applicant has committed forgery with the oil companies of reputed brands. After due completion of investigation, the applicant and coaccused persons were charge-sheeted and after committal proceeding, by the impugned order the aforesaid charges have been framed against the applicant, hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has completely overlooked as to the role played by the applicant for the commission of the said offences. It is submitted that he is not concerned with the aforesaid act not he was employed by the aforesaid oil companies even then the applicant has been shown as one of the coaccused. It is also pointed out that according to the statements of witnesses, it is the co-accused who committed the aforesaid offence and not the applicant. It is further pointed out that the impugned order framing charge against the applicant is patently unwarranted, unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this revision. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available as well as the charge-sheet prima facie, well founded case is made out against the petitioner and the Court is of opinion that this revision petition deserves to be rejected. 6. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available as well as the charge-sheet prima facie, well founded case is made out against the petitioner and the Court is of opinion that this revision petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant Bablu Nanda and other co-accused Vinod before learned trial Court reads as under:- **vkjksi rdZ lqus x,A vfHk;qDr fouksn vkSj ccyw dh vksj ls bl vk'k; ds rdZ izLrqr fd, x, gSa fd os nksuksa osru Hkksxh deZpkjh gSaA vfHk;qDr ccyw uank ds }kjk dgha fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ tIrh ugha djkbZ xbZ gS vkSj u gh fouksn vkSj ccyw ds fo#) ,slh dksbZ lk{; foospuk ds nkSjku ,df=r dh xbZ gS ftlls mudh vijk/k esa lafyIrrk izdV gks rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fy[kkus okys O;fDr us viuh daiuh dh dksbZ ekud lhy vFkok jsij Hkh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds lkFk&lkFk izLrqr ugha fd;k gS blfy, vfHk;qDr fouksn vkSj ccyw uank ds fo#) dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ugha curs gSaA** 7. After considering the material putforth before learned trial Court by the prosecution, learned trial Court was of the opinion that which reads as under :- **izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Hkh ;g ys[k gS fd izeksn dqekj ds }kjk fyf[kr f'kdk;r izLrqr fd, tkus ij lk{khx.kksa ds le{k nfc'k nh tkus ij ?kVuk LFky ij fouksn dqekj vkSj ccyw uank ds }kjk dfFkr vijk/k fd;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj ml le; lgvfHk;qDr cztfd'kksj vxzoky vU;= x;k FkkA izeksn dqekj vkSj fo'oukFk izlkn us Hkh vius dFku varxZr /kkjk 161 na-iz-la- esa fouksn dqekj vkSj ccyw uank dks udyh vkW;y fMCcksa esa Hkjrk gqvk Ikk, tkus ckcr crk;k gSA bl ckcr ;qojkt] ghjkyky] f'ko izlkn] lqjs'k tSu ds }kjk Hkh vius iqfyl Mk;jh dFku esa rF; crk, x, gSaA vr% vfHk;qDr fouksn vkSj ccyw] cztfd'kksj ds }kjk fu;qDr osruHkksxh deZpkjh Fks mUgsa vijk/k dk Kku Fkk ;k ugha vFkok os cztfd'kksj ds vkns'kkuqlkj ,slk dk;Z dj jgs Fks] ;g lHkh lk{; dh lw{e foospuk dk iz'u gS tks orZeku esa visf{kr ugha gSA** 8. In light of arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and after considering them in their true spirit and finding given by learned trial Court, it is crystal clear that there is no scope for interference in any way in the impugned order. 9. In light of arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and after considering them in their true spirit and finding given by learned trial Court, it is crystal clear that there is no scope for interference in any way in the impugned order. 9. The scope of framing of charge :- (a) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (b) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose Grave Suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (c) The Judge shall discharge the accused when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The ‘sufficient ground’ in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. At this stage, the Judge is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if un-rebutted make a conviction reasonably possible. If the evidence of the prosecution cannot show that the accused committed the offence, the accused should be discharged. (d) It is a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceeding cannot be quashed – S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [ (2010)5 SCC 600 ]. 10. Keeping in mind above discussed legal position with regard to framing of charge as well as after minute perusal of record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 9.1.2014 warranting interference by way of this revision petition against framing of charge. 11. The revision is accordingly dismissed. S.N. Saraf for applicant; R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State.