Smt. Bhanupriya wife of Shri Bahadur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

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.