Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.G. @ Krishnagopal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2017
CRR-999-2015
(K.G. @ KRISHNAGOPAL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
31-01-2017
Shri Pooran Kulshrestha, counsel for the applicant K.G. @ Krishnagopal
Sharma.
Dr.(Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Applicant- K.G. @ Krishnagopal Sharma has preferred the present
revisions against the order dated 30/09/2015, passed by Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, Morena in ST Nos. 196/2015 and 197/2015, whereby the
charges of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 420 r/w 120-B, 467 or 467
r/w 120-B, 468 or 468 r/w 120-B and 471 or 471 r/w 120-B of IPC have
been framed against the applicant in both the cases.
Facts of the case, in short, are that before Additional Sessions Judge,
Ambah, Morena in ST No.25/2014, surety Vakil Singh had produced âBhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustikaâ whereas one surety Ishtyaq Khan had produced such type of ''Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustikaâ in ST No.90/2015 for furnishing bail for accused- Parimal Singh. It is alleged that the applicant provided those forged âBhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustikaâ to the surety Ishtyaq Khan as well as Vakil Singh. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be made clear that while framing of charges, appreciation of evidence cannot be done. If the evidence is read as it is and in absence of any rebuttal evidence if a person is held guilty for a particular offence then charge of such offence shall be framed. In the present case, it is alleged against the applicant who is an Advocate that he identified Ishtyaq Khan and Vakil Singh respectively on their affidavits when they filed the bail bonds. However, there is no allegation that he identified the wrong persons. He identified Ishtyaq Khan and Vakil Singh and those sureties were found to be Ishtyaq Khan and Vakil Singh. The Investigating Officer has recorded a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from Vakil Singh as well as Ishtyaq Khan that forged âBhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustikaâ was given by the applicant- Advocate to them. However, that memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not admissible against the applicant because after getting that memo no consequential evidence was received by the Investigating Officer. Even the alleged âBhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustikaâ was already seized from the reader of the concerned Court. Hence, the evidence of co-accused who did not get any pardon by any Magistrate or CJM cannot be admitted against the applicant. The Investigating Officer did neither investigate as to whether the applicant obtained the forged aforesaid books from a particular place nor were the documents referred to the handwriting expert to show that those documents are in handwriting of the applicant. Under these circumstances, by evidence produced before the trial Court the applicant cannot be connected with the crime of forgery, cheating, etc. either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC. In the present case, there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant- Advocate that he was the author or provider of those forged documents to the concerned sureties. A suspicion may be created that those two persons could not get the forged documents on their own and there must be a common source but it was for the Investigating Officer to connect the applicant with the aforesaid crime. Only by identification of the sureties or evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the sureties as accused which is not admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, the applicant has not been connected with co-accused Ishtyaq Khan or Vakil Singh.
If evidence collected by the prosecution is considered as it is, then the applicant cannot be convicted of any offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has committed error in framing of charges against the applicant- Advocate. Consequently, both the revisions filed by applicant K.G. @ Krishnagopal Sharma are hereby allowed. The order dated 30/09/2015 passed in ST No.196/2015 and the order dated 30/09/2015 passed in ST No.197/2015 are hereby set aside relating to applicant - K.G. @ Krishnagopal Sharma. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings of those cases against applicant - K.G. @ Krishnagopal Sharma and the trial Court shall proceed with the case against the remaining accused persons.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKB