Shiv Kumar vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

This criminal revision arises out of the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, upsetting the order of discharge passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib dated July 19, 1983 and remanding the case to him with the direction that he should go into the evidence and then proceed with the case in accordance with law.

The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. The SubDivisional Officer (Civil). Anandpur issued permits for the issue of cement to different persons who made a complaint to him that cement was not supplied to some of the permit holders because the quota had exhausted, on which the SubDivisional Officer (C) enquired and found that cement had been issued to some unauthorised persons, on the basis of bogus permit and then he got a case registered with the police through a complaint dated June 15, 1981. During the investigation of the case, Shiv Kumar, Raja Ram and Lekh Raj were interrogated and after investigation, challan was presented in the Court of the trial Magistrate only against Shiv Kumar. At the time of the framing of the charge, the trial Magistrate discharged Shiv Kumar accused vide his order dated July 19, 1983 against which the State went up in revision and the same was allowed by the Sessions Judge. Ropar, who remanded the case to the trial Magistrate with the direction as indicated above and hence the revision at the instance of Shiv Kumar.

Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged with little persistence that after the case having been remanded by the learned Session Judge, the trial Magistrate framed the charge under Ss. 467/471. Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner but there is absolutely no evidence against him on which conviction can be based, under the said offences. He has also referred me to the statement of Sh. Gian Singh Sandhu, SubDivisional Officer (C), Anandpur Sahib (copy annexure P.2) allegedly recorded by Assistant SubInspector Mangal Singh under S. 161, Cr.P.C. which shows that he had authorised the petitioner to issue permits to different persons and that if it is accepted for argument''s sake that the petitioner had issued the permits, he did it on the authority given to him by the SubDivisional Officer (C).

The learned counsel has contended that it is nobody''s case that the petitioner had forged the signatures of the SubDivisional Officer (C) because the permits did not contain the signature of the S. Gian Chand Sandhu, SubDivisional Officer (C). There is substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Unless their is an allegation of fraud, it would not amount to a forgery because one of the intents contemplated by S. 463, Indian Penal Code, is that false document must be made with the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The evidence, therefore, as it stands, does not make out any case that the petitioner had dishonestly or fraudulently issued the permits on behalf of the SubDivisional Officer (C). That being so, it cannot be said that he was responsible for making of false documents either.

The result is that the revision petition is allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner is herein quashed.