Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar Saini vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2015
Cr.R. No. 526/2015 1
Pawan Kumar Saini and another
Vs.
State of M.P.
09/09/2015
Shri Mukesh Kulshrestha, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Shri R.S. Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State
Heard.
This revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed assailing legality and propriety of order dated 11.05.2015 passed by IV ASJ, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 543/2014, by which the application under Section 209 of Cr.P.C has been disallowed.
Brief facts just necessary for adjudication of this matter that the recruitment test for the post of Postal Assistant was scheduled on 22.06.2014 by the Post Department and written test was being carried at Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Jayandraganj, Gwalior. At room No. 4. Snehal Rewadikar and Sadhna Dixit were the invigilators and Anant Gopal was the examiner. During checking, it was found that the candidate of Cr.R. No. 526/2015 2 Pawan Kumar Saini and another Vs. State of M.P. the serial No. 231470320127, who appeared in the examination was found to be a different person than the origin candidate, whose photograph was enclosed in the attendance sheet and roll number and did not resemble with the person who was appearing in the examination. When the identity card was checked, it was found that the identity card was of a different person than the candidate. On questioning, it was found that the accused Pawan Saini S/o Shri Rajveer Singh Saini, resident of House No. 26, Manohar Colony, Patel Nagar, Haryana was found appearing in place of the official candidate Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar. Information was sent to the In- charge of the examination.
On the written complaint, Police Station Jhansi Road registered the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read with Section 3/4 of M.P. (Recognized) Examination Act against accused persons Pawan Saini and Manoj Kumar. After filing charge sheet, the petitioner moved an application under Section 209 of Cr.P.C requesting Cr.R. No. 526/2015 3 Pawan Kumar Saini and another Vs. State of M.P. that at the most, offence falls under Section 419 of IPC and Section 3/4 of M.P. (Recognized) Examination Act. But offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not made out. Therefore, the case be remanded back to the committal Court.
The learned IV ASJ, Gwalior, dismissed the application and framed charges under Section 120-B, 467, 468, 419 and 471 of IPC read with Section 4 of M.P (Recognized) Examination Act against the accused persons.
Aggrieved by this, the accused persons petitioners moved this revision on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable for offence under Section 3/4 of M.P. Examination Act and not a central Act hence, which is not attracted for the examination of the Indian Postal Services. It is also claimed that Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not attracted in the present circumstances. There is no signature of the applicant in the OMR sheet and attendance sheet. OMR sheet, attendance sheet and admit card were seized from the examiner Anant Cr.R. No. 526/2015 4 Pawan Kumar Saini and another Vs. State of M.P. Gopal and not from the petitioners. In place of original documents, photocopies of OMR sheet, attendance sheet and admit card, were produced in the Court. As the original documents were not seized on the basis of the photocopies offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC can not be proved.
It is seen that the application under Section 209 of Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioners and was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The trial Court has rightly held that the materials and evidence of a witnesses referred to offences triable by Court of Sessions and committal of the entire case to sessions Court is valid. If the documents which have been filed are the photocopies, originals of the same may be called. On this ground only, it could not be claimed that no offence is made out. At the time of framing of charge, it is to be seen that prima facie case is made out or not. However, roving inquiry is not necessary at this preliminary stage.
As regarding the documents, the Indian Panel Code has taken two sections, which define forgery Cr.R. No. 526/2015 5 Pawan Kumar Saini and another Vs. State of M.P. under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC. That if a person makes any false document and if he makes signs or executes a document with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Whoever signed or executed a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, signed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed, that person is said to make a false document. The other view is that it is sufficient to prove that he intended to cause injury to another.
The present case is very clear and an unambiguous, misrepresentation or fabricating of false document, which is soul of forgery. Accused Pawan appeared in the examination in place of accused Manoj. It is clear cut case of fraud intended. Therefore, at this stage it would be appropriate to say that offences are made out against accused persons under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. In this circumstances it is not appropriate to allow this revision. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
Cr.R. No. 526/2015 6Pawan Kumar Saini and another Vs. State of M.P. With these observations, this Court does not find it proper to interfere in the order of the Court below. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
(S.K. Palo) JUDGE LJ*