Sharwan Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr

By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Sharwan Singh has approached this Court for challenging the order

dated 08.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in revision affirming the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate (First Class), Mandal in Criminal Case No.97/2012 whereby, charges were framed against the petitioners and other co-accused

persons for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

Shri Chundawat, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that his client was posted as a Gram Sevak in the Gram

Panchayat at the relevant point of time. He had no knowledge about the disptued job card being forged. The duty of identifying the labourers

concerned was that of the Mate and as such, he contended that the order framing charge and proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against

the petitioner should be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner''s counsel. He urged that it is virtually an

admitted position on record that the disputed job card against which, payment of wages was made fraudulently bore the photographs of Kailashi

instead of Nosar. Kailash was minor on the date of the incident and the petitioner fraudulently verified the documents of payment thereby

facilitating the payment of wages to a fictitious person. He thus urged that no interference is called for in the impugned order.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

Ex-facie, I am not satisfied by the argument of Shri Chundawat that the petitioner was not aware about the consequences of his act and that only

the Mate would be responsible for the mistake. There is ample material available on record that the photograph which was affixed on the disputed

job card was not of Nosar and instead her minor sister,s photograph was affixed thereupon and payment was facilitated to an imposter thereby.

The petitioner was an integral part of the payment procedure and as such, he cannot claim absolute exoneration from prosecution. The trial court

as well as the revisional court took note of the fact that even the department authorities penalised the petitioner in the matter.

In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that it is not a case wherein, the Court can be persuaded to exercise its inherent powers so

as to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below while framing and affirming the order framing charge against the

petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition is dismissed as being of merit.