AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 20.03.2017
whereby Court of revision had partially allowed the revision
petition filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Court of revision accepted that the transfer certificate was a
forged document. However, court of revision erred in holding that
no offence of cheating or forgery could be said to have been
committed by the accused as while attaching the said document at
the time of filling of nomination form for Panchayant elections,
accused could not be attributed the knowledge that they would
definitely win the elections.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3
despite service.
Prosecution story, in brief is that the respondent No.2 had
filled nomination form for Panchayat elections and had attached a
forged transfer certificate with regard to VIII class examination.
Trial Court vide order dated 19.11.2016 framed charges against
the accused for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved against the said
order, respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred a revision petition. Court
of revision held that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be said to have been
committed by accused. It was held that respondent No.2 was
liable to be tried qua offence under Sections 197, 198 and 199 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court of revision gave a finding that
transfer certificate in question was not a genuine document. Since
the transfer certificate attached by the respondent No.2 at the
time of filling her form for Panchayat elections was a forged
document, accused were liable to be tried qua offence of
cheating/forgery. The finding given by the Court of revision that
no offence of cheating or forgery could be said to have been
committed by the accused as they were not sure that they would
win the election is without any basis. The only fact necessary for
commission of offence of cheating/forgery is that a forged
document had been used by the accused. At this stage, it was
irrelevant whether the accused had the knowledge that she would
win the election on the basis of the forged document or not.
The reasons given by the court of revision while setting aside
the order passed by the Trail Court is without any legal basis.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated
20.03.2017 is set aside.