1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th January, 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Vadodara, below Exh.20 in Criminal Case No.1398/1997 as well as the order dated 14th March, 2006 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No.68/2006 and seeks quashment of the charge-sheet dated 7th May, 1999 as well as Criminal Case No.1398/1997 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Vadodara qua the present petitioner.
2. The respondent No.2 filed a first information report which came to be registered as Navapura Police Sub-station, District Vadodara I – C.R. No.73/1996 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 34, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against several named accused. Subsequently, it appears that during the course of investigation, the petitioner's name also came to be revealed. Accordingly, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.
3. The petitioner moved an application seeking discharge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by an application (Exh.20). The learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd court, Vadodara vide his order dated 11th January, 2005 rejected the application. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara vide the impugned order dated 30th June, 2006 dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has moved the present application challenging the said order and seeking quashing of the criminal case as well as the charge sheet qua the present petitioner.
4. Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the statement of one Nagraj Narayanraj (K. Nagraj) which came to be recorded on 9th October, 1996 wherein he had stated that he was the District Manager of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. and that he had taken charge as District Manager from 9th July, 1993. It was submitted that the said witness has also stated that prior to his taking charge, the petitioner herein was the District Manager from 21st July, 1988 to 9th July, 1993 at Ahmedabad and that thereafter he had been transferred. The learned advocate submitted that the offence in question has taken place between 19th October, 1993 to 10th October, 1994 and that at the relevant time when the alleged offence is stated to have been committed, the petitioner was already transferred and was no longer holding the post of Manager at Ahmedabad. It was, accordingly, submitted that in the light of the statement of the District Manager, the petitioner was required to be discharged from the offence alleged and as such, both the courts below had erred in rejecting the petitioner's application.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 invited the attention of the court to the invoice dated 10th October, 1994 at page 113 of the compilation, which forms part of the charge sheet papers to submit that the said document had been signed by the petitioner and that the handwriting expert has opined that the signature is that of the petitioner herein. It was submitted that under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and as such, no case is made out for discharging the petitioner in connection with the offence in question. It was, accordingly, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the main ground on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking discharge is the statement of K. Nagraj, the District Manager who had taken charge at Ahmedabad with effect from 9th July, 1993. It appears that the said witness in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer has stated that prior to his taking charge as District Manager at Ahmedabad, the petitioner Shri S. Bhagwan was discharging duties as District Manager from 21st July, 1988 to 9th July, 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been transferred from Ahmedabad to Bangalore on 9th July, 1993 and thereafter had been transferred to various places. The principal contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the fact that he had been transferred from Ahmedabad at the relevant time when the offence came to be committed, no case can be said to have been made out against him and as such, he is required to be discharged.
7. The record of the case reveals that the case of the prosecution is that the accused in connivance with each other have created false documents. The record further discloses that the document involved in the commission of the offence bears the signature of the petitioner and as per the opinion of the handwriting expert, the same has, in fact, been signed by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that there is no evidence to connect him with the offence in question is clearly contrary to the record of the case. Under the circumstances, at this stage, merely on the basis of the statement of Mr. K. Nagraj, it is not possible to say that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in question so as to warrant discharge under section 227 of the Code.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that the courts below have committed any legal infirmity in not allowing the discharge application filed by the petitioner. In the absence of any legal error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara, the petition fails, and is, accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki