Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard.

Applicant has preferred this revision petition under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by order dated 11/10/2012 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Jabalpur in Special Case No. 22/2012 whereby charge u/s 193, 201, 468, 120-B of IPC has been framed against him.

The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that co- accused Mahendra Kumar Gupta has been charge sheeted under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (E) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 193, 201, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC with the allegation that he found in possession of disproportionate income of more than 81 % to the tune of Rs. 31,57,733/- other than his known source of income. It is further alleged that this applicant being a Notary has entered into conspiracy with co-accused Mahendra Kumar Gupta and notarized an agreement to sale which said to have been created antedated documents for the purpose of using the same in judicial process showing that some money has been earned by Smt. Usha Gupta, wife of Mahendra by selling a plot.

We have perused the impugned order and other evidence available on record.

In the course of argument, it is brought to the notice of this Court that trial has already been commenced and about 46 witnesses have been recorded in this case.

It is well established principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, trial Court is not expected to appreciate the evidence of witnesses. If prima facie strong suspicion found from the material produced before the trial Court, charge can be framed against the accused. It further reveals from the impugned order that purchaser Mahesh Kanhoua himself has stated in his statement recorded under sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C that he never entered into agreement with Smt. Usha Gupta, wife of Mahendra for purchasing a plot. It reveals from the record that purchaser has not paid a single penny to Smt. Usha Gupta and documents said to have been executed in February, 2012 but date of agreement is shown 20/09/2010. There is prima facie evidence on record that applicant was involved in notarizing the antedated document without verifying the contents of document therefore, we are of the view that trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge u/s 193, 201, 468, 120-B of IPC against the applicant.