Satish Kumar Jaiswal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma in S.T. No. 83/2012 whereby the charges for offence punishable under sections 467 in alternate 467 /120-B, 468 in alternate 468 /120-B and 471 in alternate 471 /120-B of IPC were framed against the applicant.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, a certificate for the applicant was filed in the office of CPWD to show his good performance in construction. That certificate as issued by CEO, Nagar Panchayat Bijuri that the applicant constructed a Samudayik Bhawan in a satisfactory manner. On enquiry it was found that such construction was done by one Manish Kumar Goenka and it was not done by the applicant and therefore, such certificate issued by the CEO, Nagar Panchayat Bijuri was a forged document. Initially an FIR was lodged by one Rakesh Shukla, the respondent No. 2. The complaint was registered and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order for framing of the charges.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is no where established that the applicant used any certificate which was found to be forged. There is no application shown by the complainant that the applicant applied for such an experience certificate from Nagar Panchayat Bijuri, District Anuppur. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised so many objections against framing of charges that no sufficient evidence was there to frame such charges.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie it was established by the complainant that such a certificate was issued in favour of the applicant, whereas he had not done any construction work as shown in the certificate and therefore, certificate issued in favour of the applicant is a forged one. Though the documents are not shown as to whether the applicant applied for that certificate or not but, it is also established prima facie that such certificate was found in the office of CPWD. If the applicant was not interested in getting such certificate then, nobody could issue such a certificate and provide it to the officers of CPWD and therefore, prima facie it would be presumed that the forged certificate was obtained by the applicant and he used it for getting a big contract in his name. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that prima facie no charge shall be framed against the applicant. Looking to the contents of the complaint and prima facie evidence adduced by the complainant, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly framed the charges against the applicant. If the applicant is found guilty for offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC then, he shall be liable for the same punishment as given for offence punishable under sections 467 and 468 of IPC and therefore, such charges could also be framed against the applicant.

There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma, District Anuppur. No illegality or perversity is visible in that order. Consequently, the present revision petition filed by the applicant Satish Kumar Jaiswal cannot be accepted.

Hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.