CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 MP CK 0288

Harisharan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.A. Siddiqui, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1253/11

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 347 words

M.A. Siddiqui, Judge

1.

This petition u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner Harisharan in order to quash the charges framed under Sections 467,468 and 471 of IPC by learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in ST No. 301/10 on 23.05.11 with the allegation that petitioner was the owner of Aman Computers, Rath from where with the help of Computer, CPU etc., fake registration was carried out as per memorandum of co-accused Anuj Tiwari. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is not a single legal evidence against the petitioner. The memorandum of co-accused is not admission in evidence as per authority in Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. 1994 (II) MPWN Note No. 72 and Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. 1995 (I) MP Note No. 248.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for State though have called Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Inspector of Police (the then Investigating Officer posted at Chhatarpur), at present posted at Mandla, but he is also unable to reveal that petitioner who is shown to be a Government servant in his memorandum of arrest has any connection with Aman Computers, Rath. Even the ownership of Computer, CPU, etc. has not been established which could have been investigated. Now, legal position is that except the memorandum of co-accused Anuj Tiwari, no other evidence is there to connect the petitioner with the ownership of Aman Computers from where the fake registration numbers were forged.

3.

As there is no nexus relating to commission of offence and there is not even a slightest iota of evidence against the petitioner except the inadmissible evidence of memorandum of co-accused since no recovery, etc. is there from the petitioner, hence, simple allegation that petitioner is the owner of Amar Computers and he is the owner of Computer, CPU, etc. is not admissible. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, the aforesaid charges framed against petitioner Harisharan are hereby quashed and petitioner Harisharan is acquitted of the offence. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharges. The revision is allowed.