Krishna Pillai vs State and others

Govinda Pillai, J.—Heard both sides. On a complaint filed by P. W. 3, a case bad been registered against the two accused for offences under Ss. 467, 470 and 473, Travancore Penal Code. It bad been stated that while P. W. 3 had agreed to transfer to accused 1 certain textile goods, a document Ex. C purporting to convey the right over the goods, the shop, and the licence to get textile quota was got written by P. w. 3''s trusted accountant, accused 3, in Malayalam, a language not known to the complainant. It was alleged that it was read out to the complainant so as to make it appear that the goods alone were transferred to accused 1. He was, therefore, induced to sign the same. Some time hence the complainant came to know of the alleged fraud played on him and so be filed the case. This is a case to be tried by the Sessions Court. After recording the prosecution evidence, the Magistrate had drawn up charges against accused 1 and 2. Criminal R. P. No. 85 of 1125 by accused 1 and Cr. R. P. NO. 86 of 1125 by accused a were filed to quash these charges as according to the accused there was no evidence justifying the drawing up of the charge. None can dispute the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere at any stage of the proceedings before the Court below if that has to be exercised in the interests of justice. (Vide In Re: S. Kuppuswami Aiyar, . In Tarak Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah. 731: (28 Cr. L. J. 755) it was held that an order framing a charge is interlocutory and that it was not usual for the High Court to interfere with such orders though the powers of the High Court to set aside the charge and quash the proceedings were undoubted. This power has to be exercised only sparingly. Leaving all other matters out of consideration there is the evidence of P. W. 3 that be was defrauded into executing Ex. C, that Rx. C itself had been altered in material particulars after execution and that the document in question had been fabricated for purposes of cheating. It is the function of the Court of enquiry only to see whether there is a prima facie case to go for trial before the Court of Sessions. The enquiring Court is not expected to sift the evidence and appreciate the same as is done by the trial Court. The lower Court considered that there is some evidence to frame the charge against the accused. It is not the function of the Court of revision at this stage to analyse the evidence and to see whether a charge would have been framed by it, bad it been the enquiring Court. I am not satisfied that sufficient grounds had been made out in this case for interference in revision at this stage. Both the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.