Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Badrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2018

                                 2
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
              CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1847 OF 2018

Indore, Dated 26.11.2018
        Mr. G.K. Purwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
        Mr. Piyush Shrivastava, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.2807/2018 which is an application for stay.

In the application it has been mentioned that the charge under-Section 477 Indian Penal Code, 1860 framed along with other charges is not attracted, as the concerned document allegedly to have been torn or thrown out, has not been recovered.

It has been pointed out that amongst the documents filed by the police, the tasdik panchnama and the other piece of documents were searched, but could not be traced. Therefore, there is nothing on record to attract offence under Section 477 IPC.

A bare perusal of charge-sheet shows that the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Sections 3(2)(1)(va) and 3(1)

(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 have been framed and the contention of learned counsel is only with regard to Section 477 IPC and the stay pertaining to framing of charge under Section 477 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has invited attention of this Court towards the statement of Gattabai recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 who stated that Badrilal had torn off the copy of pavti and for 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1847 OF 2018 framing of charges, such averments are the only requisites.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that not a single piece of pavti was found on the spot.

On due consideration of arguments of both the counsels, it is found that the act of tearing of pavti allegedly took place on 30.12.2017, whereas the search for the torn piece was made on the next date i.e. on 31.12.2017. Due to lapse of time, the torn pieces may have got untraceable. The statement of Gattabai at this stage cannot be wished away and thus charge under Section 477 IPC is rightly framed and there is no material on record to stay framing of charge under Section 477 IPC. Hence, the application (IA No.2807/2018) is hereby dismissed.

List this revision for final hearing in due course.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-