Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2013
1
Cr.R. No.946 of 2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA
PRADESH, JABALPUR
SB: HON'BLE SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.946/2012
Smt. Sangeeta Chaturvedi.
-Vs-
State of Madhya Pradesh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 8th day of January, 2013) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No.99/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 were framed against the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the applicant had submitted an application for appointment to the post of Aaganwari Worker. In that application, she had submitted a mark sheet. When an enquiry was under
taken, then it was found that the said mark sheet was forged and the applicant did not get good marks in the 2 Cr.R. No.946 of 2012 higher secondary examination, and therefore it was found that she had done cheating, forgery and she had used a forged documents knowingly that it was forged. After filing of the charge sheet, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, because according to the amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Madhya Pradesh, the present case was triable by the Court of Sessions.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main grievance of the applicant is that no offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the applicant. For other offences, she has no grievance. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that forged mark sheet was not at all a valuable security, therefore no offence under Section 467 of IPC may constitute. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the 3 Cr.R. No.946 of 2012 case of "Shaikh Noor Mohamad Shaikh Fazal Vs. State of Maharashtra", (AIR 1981 SC 297).
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the revision petition.
7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be correct. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh (supra) has specifically held that such type of mark sheet etc. which are required for admission or appointment to any job cannot be described as a valuable security, and therefore basically no offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out. However, the offence under Section 465 of IPC shall be made out against the applicant, whereas the remaining offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC shall also be made out, and since the offences under Section 468 and 471 of IPC are triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore it is not necessary that the case may be remanded back under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court may proceed with the case by simply modification of charges that the charge of offence under Section 467 of IPC may be reduced to the charge of offence under Section 465 of 4 Cr.R. No.946 of 2012 IPC, whereas the remaining charges shall remain unaltered.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 9.4.2012 is hereby partly set aside upto the extent for the charge under Section 467 of IPC. However, the trial Court is directed to frame the charge of offence under Section 465 of IPC instead of offence under Section 467 of IPC and proceed with the trial thereafter.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge 08/01/2013 Ansari.