Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3433 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY MALVIYA S/O SHRI RATANLALMALVIYA, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAHAVEER
WARD BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
POLICE STATION KOTWALI BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. PUSHPANJALI DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 22/11/2023
Pronounced on: 11/12/2023
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C by the
present applicant against the order dated 29.06.2022 of framing of charges
under Sections 420 r/w 120-B, 467 r/w 120-B, 468 r/w 120-B of IPC by 3rd
Addl. Sessions Judge, District Betul in ST.No.52/2022.
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the accused Pappu
submitted fake rin pustika in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul
in Crime No.214/16 to secure the release of accused Ranjeet on bail. It
appeared to be suspicious, therefore, the Court made complaint and send
Pappu to the Police Station alongwith relevant documents. Police registered the
case and seized various forged documents from Pappu. During investigation,
Pappu revealed the name of accused Shriram (Patwari) and Vijay (present
applicant). Many old rin pustikas and documents were seized from Patwari
Shriram while rubber making stamp machine, trace papers, seal of various
offices and other articles were seized from present applicant Vijay. The case
was registered against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections. After
investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The Court framed the charges against
the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is having
a shop and registered machine in which he used to make seals of different
departments. He has not prepared any false and fabricated documents. He has
not produced those documents before the Court. It is also submitted that
applicant has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum of co-
accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act which is not admissible
evidence. It is also submitted that charges levelled against the applicant is
absolutely groundless and there is no material against the applicant. The
allegations do not constitute of necessary ingredients for framing charges under
Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B of IPC. It is requested to discharge
the applicant from the aforesaid charges. In support of his submissions, he has
placed reliance in the case of Kamta Prasad @ K.P.Jaiswal Vs. The State
of M.P (Cr.R.No.1803/2022) dated 26.09.2022 and Anoop Jaiswal @ Jassa
Vs. State of M.P (Cr.R.No.1341/2021) dated 13.09.2021.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that co-
accused Pappu has submitted the false rin pustika and other documents before
the trial Court. The paper of that rin pustika and seals alongwith other
documents have been seized from the present applicant and there is ample
evidence against the accused. On the basis of these documents, charge sheet
has been filed against the applicant and charges have been framed by the trial
Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. At the time of framing of charges what should be considered by the
Court in this regard following judgments of the Apex Court are relevant:
In the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
and another (2019) 9 SCC 148, the Apex Court observed that at the stage of
framing of charges, it is the duty of the Court to apply its judicial mind to the
material placed before it and to come to a clear conclusion that Prima facie
case hast been made out against the accused. An order of framing of charge is
of serious concern to the accused as it affects his liberty substantially.
Courts must, therefore, be cautious that their decision at the initial stage of
trial causes no irreparable harm to the accused. It is also settled law that the
documents of defence cannot be seen at the stage of framing of charge. The
Court should examine the prosecution documents to find out as to whether any
ground is available to proceed further, it is not necessary that the trial will end in
the conviction.
7. In the case of State by The Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs.
S.Selvi and another (2018) 13 SCC 455, it is observed as under:
"It is well settled by this Court in catena of
judgments including the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla Samal,
(1979) 3 SCC 4; Dilawar Babu vs. State of Maharashtra (2002)
2 SCC 135; Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368; State v.
A.Arun Kumar (2015) 2 SCC 417; Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak
Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424; State of Orissa v. Debendra
Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711; Niranjan Singh Karam
Singh Punjabi etc. vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya (1990) 4 SCC
76 and Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC
274 that the Judge while considering the question of framing
charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases
(which is akin to Section 239 Cr. P.C. pertaining to
warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the
material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be
fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two
views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion
but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a
Post Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider
the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
statements and the documents produced before the Court, any
basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was
conducting a trial. In the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9
SCC 368, this Court on consideration of the various decisions
about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, laid down the
following principles:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
c harges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained, the Court will be fully
justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post
Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effec t of the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at
this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could
form an opinion that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the
conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the
material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission
of offence by the accused was possible.
v i) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the
Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value discloses the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose,
sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to
accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge
will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is
not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
This Court in the cases of State vs. A. Arun Kumar (2015)
2 SCC 417, Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424,
State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711 and
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC
709 has reiterated almost the aforementioned principles."
8 . In the case at hand, in the Court of the First Additional Sessions
Judge, Betul, Pappu submitted rin pustika No.L.No.BE....108199 to secure
Ranjeet's release on bail. A memorandum under Section 27 of Indian Evidence
Act prepared at the instance of accused Vijay reveals that seals of various
offices, trace paper and other articles on which number of the rin pustika
No.L.No.BE....108199 was mentioned, were also recovered at his instance.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the present accused/applicant is
only based on memorandum. In the case o f Kamta Prasad (supra) and
Anoop Jaiswal @ Jassa (supra), there was no seizure from the accused
persons. Hence, it is not applicable in the present case. Thus, it cannot be said
that it was case of false implication. The other documents and statements filed
alongwith charge-sheet also indicates applicant's prima facie involvement in the
case.
9. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, charges so framed
by learned judge of the trial Court on 29.06.2022 need no interference. Hence,
the revision is dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
