Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2015
CRR-839-2014
(SATISH KUMAR RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
07-08-2015
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2013 whereby, a charge under Sections 170, 171, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was directed to be framed against the applicant/accused Satish Kumar Rai.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are as hereunder: Branch Manager of Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Branch Mandla, filed a written report in Police Station, Mandla, to the effect that a suspicious looking person (who later turned out to be accused/applicant), appeared in the Mandla Branch of the Corporation at around 11:30 am on 28.10.2013. In Visitor Register, he entered his name as Satish Rai R/o Sigodi, District Seoni. He introduced himself as an Officer of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police and stated that he had come to conduct a raid in the Branch. He also produced an identity card which was purportedly issued by âMadhya Pradesh Government, Delhi, Crime Branch, Governor, Delhiâ. The contents of aforesaid identity card immediately raised a suspicion. At that time, staff members Saurabh Patel, Mamta Khobragade and Vishnu Jhariya were present When the Branch Manager R.C.S. Thakur went in his chamber, the said perosn told the staff members that if an amount was paid to him he would not conduct the raid. He left the office telling the staff members that he would return on the next day. On the next day i.e 29.10.2013, he was found roaming around the office of the complainant, who lodged report with police.
3. On the basis of aforesaid report, the police arrested the applicant accused from outside the Mandla Branch of Muthoot Fincorp Ltd.. Aforesaid identity card and documents were seized from his possession. On the basis of disclosure statements made by the accused, a laptop computer belonging to his relative were seized from his possession and a camera and a printer alleged to have been used for the purpose of forging the identity card, was seized from the possession of aforesaid relative.
4. The order framing charge has been assailed mainly on the ground that since no amount was delivered to the applicant, no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out. It has further been submitted that identity card is not a valuable security. It also does not fall under any of the categories mentioned under Section 467 of the IPC; as such, charge under Section 467 is also not made out. However, learned counsel for the applicant has conceded that 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the sessions trial.
5. A perusal of the case diary reveals that there is sufficient material on record to frame a charge under Section 170 (personating a public servant), 171 (wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged or document or electronic record); however, it is not the case of prosecution that any amount was actually delivered by Muthoot Fincorpp Corporation Ltd. Branch Mandla or by any of the staff members, to the accused applicant. Thus, though, there was an attempt to cheat, no cheating actually took place. As such, a charge of attempt to cheat under Section 420 read with section 511 ought to have been framed. Likewise, there is no forgery of a document which is a valuable security or which falls under any of the other categories mentioned under Section 467 of the IPC. Thus, no charge under Section 467 is made out either.
5. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed.
6. It is directed that learned trial Court shall, after following due procedure, suitably amend the charge so as to frame the charge under Section 420 read with section 511 of the IPC instead of one under Section 420 of the IPC. It shall also drop the charge under Section 467 of the IPC. Charge for remaining offences shall remain unaffected.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE