JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order deted 21.7.2006 passed, by Sri D.B. Jein, Additional sessions Judge, Basti allowing Criminal Revision No. 229 of 2001 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 14.5.2001 passed by Sri J.R. Maurya, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Besti by discharging accused-revisionist Nar Narain Upadhyaya in Case No. 1346 of 2001, State v. Ner Nerain Upadhyaya, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Ipc., Police Kotwali Basti, district Basti. while allowing the revision, the lower revisional court remanded the matter to the trial court with the direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law keeping the observations made by it in mind.
2. The brief facts, arising out of this revision, are that accused-revisionist Dr. Nar Narain Upadhyaya went to the office of informant Dr. Rajendre Prased Paswan, Kshetriya Aurvedic Evem Unani Adhikari, Besti on 25.7.1999 at any time in to forenoon to take over charge as Medical Officer in Government Ayrvedic hospital, Mahadewa, Sant Kabir Nagar and produced forged transfer order alongwith the application for order and application for permission to join the office. Having some doubts he sent all the orders/papers produced by the accused Dr. Nar Nerain Upedhyay for confirmation alongwith tne covering letter to the Director of Aurvedic and Unani Services, U.P. Lucknow in response of which he received letter No. 14539/Adhi./13-A.G.-7/99 dated 9.8.1999 of the Director wherein the Director had ordered to lodge the first information report against accused Dr. Nar Narein Upadhyaya finding all transfer orders/papers produced by accused forged. On the basis of the direction of the Director above, the informant lodged the first information report against the accused on 27.8.1999 for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC, registered as case Crime No. 1116 of 1999 at P.S. Kotwali, Basti. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the above offence
3. Thereafter, the accused was discharged by Sri J.R. Maurya, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti vide his order dated 14.5.2001. Feeling aggrieved by it, the State of U.P. had filed a criminal revision challenging the impugned order passed by the concerned Magistrate which was allowed end tae order passed by the concerned Magistrate was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the court below with the direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law keeping the observation made by the revisional court in mind. Thereafter, the accused preferred the present revision in this Court praying to quash the order passed by the lower revisional Court.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist-accused and learned A.G.A. I have also perused the records.
5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the lower revisional court has no powerto substitute its own finding of fact recorded by the trial court by re-epprecieting the evidence, it is further contended that the lower revisional court tried to blow hot and cold together by holding that the accused is not entitled to adduce evidence at the time of framing charges and by holding that cherges can be framed on greve suspicion ageinst the accused wnich has not been properly explained. It is further contended that the lower revisional court hes failed to consider that two views are equally possible and the evidence produced before the court below does not create grave suspicion with regard to the commission of the crime, the accused will be discharged end benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. It is further contended that there is nothing on record in this case except the statement of informant which may give rise to a suspicion; but not to a grave suspicion. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of assumption end the trial court has to act as a mere post office and if the frivolous F.I.R. lodged against a person and charge sheet has been submitted, the court is not bound to frame charge against the accused in all cases. It is further contended that if the impugned order is not set aside, in these circumstances, the statement of informant shell be rendered to be futile exercxse and the accused cannot be convicted. It is further contended that the lower revisional court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and has come to erroneous conclusion while relying upon the photostat copies of the documents produced in evidence.
6. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. According to the facts, mentioned in the first information report as well as the statement of informant recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer of the case, the accused-revisionist reached in the office of informant, who is also a doctor and submitted his transfer order from district Tehri (Utteranchel) to the office of the informant alongwith the joining report and relieving order of the concerned doctor of the district Tehri (Uttaranchal). It has been specifically stated by the informant in the first information report and in his statement that the documents submitted before him by the eccused-revisionist were sent for verification to the Director who, in its reply, intimated that the transfer and relieving orders were found as forged documents and the informant was directed to lodge the first information report against the accused. Therefore, the accused-revisionist is the beneficiary directly by producing the forged documents. The letter of the Director is also supported the version of the informant.
8. Although, this was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the Director regarding the letter sent by him to the informant describing the forged documents filed by the accused-revisionist. This shows that the Investigating Officer has deliberately not tried to take the statement of the Director which reveals that the investigation was entrusted to get the benefit to the accused. In such circumstances, it is a matter of serious enquiry against the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to make an enquiry on it. If the lapse is found on the part of the Tnvestigating Officer, necessary action be taken against the Investigating Officer of the case.
9. However, it is worthwhile to mention here that there is no bar to produce any evidence at the stage of trial. If any witness is the material witness and his statement is not recorded by the Investigating Officer, he may be summoned by the trial court by invoking its powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At present, there is no ground on behalf of the revision is that the signatures Upon the forged transfer order and relieving orders are correct documents which were issued by the Director and the concerned doctor from district Tehri (Uttaranchal). In such circumstances, the exper's opinion is not necessary for verifying the signatures of the Director end the concerned doctor and relieving the accused-revisionist. However, the accused-revisionist takes the plea at the stage of trial regarding the genuiness of the signatures upon the above documents and then he may produce the evidence in his defence and meaning thereby that there is no cause of the revisionist that the alleged transfer and relieving orders are genuine documents. when the alleged transfer and relieving order are not found genuine documents, it is liable to be deemed that these documents ere forged end the accused-revisionist is the only beneficiary of the seme. Consequently, he submitted the goining-report in the office of respondent No. 2 by producing the said transfer and relieving orders. The same has been stated by informant respondent No. 2 in the first information report as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C
10. So far as the photostat copy of the documents are concerned, the same may be proved by the prosecution at the stage of trial by producing primary or secondary evidence. Merely, on the basis of the photostat copies of the documents, the accused could not be discharged by holding that there is no prima faciecase for framing the charge. The accused-revisionist is beneficiary regarding the documents and, in such circumstances, no other view can be taken otherthan the view taken by the lower revisional court.
11. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, it hes been held as under:
Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging en accused. It provides that" the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but e ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined end not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the materials. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary mfterial on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.
12. In State of orissa v. Debendra Nath Padni, it has further been held as under:
The record of the case and documents submitted therewith as postulated in Section 227 relate to the case and the documents referred in Section 209 Cr.P.C. That is the plain meaning of Section 227 read with Section 209 CrPC. The provision about hearing the submissions of the eccused as postulated by Section 227 only means hearing tne submissions of the accused on tne recold of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression "hearing the submissions of tne accused" cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby chenging the settled law. At the state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the eccused nas to be confined to the material produced by the police.
13. In Union of India v. Prefulla Kumar Samel, it has also been held as under:
The test to determine a prime facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. Where the materials pieced before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, however, if two views ere equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
14. The above decisions are fully applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
15. The learned concerned Magistrate has passed the discharge order by exceeding his jurisdiction, not vested in him. It cannot be passed at the stage of framing of charge. There was no nedessity or elaborating circumstances before the concerned Magistrate to pass a detail order after exceeding its jurisdiction. On the basis of the first information report as well as the statement of informant respondent No. 2, there was sufficient ground to presume that the accused-revisionist has committed the above offences. Therefore, the accused should have been charged by the concerned Magistrate. In these circumstances, the learned lower revisional court has not committed any manifest error of law or illegality in passing the impugned order while the concerned Magistrate has committed manifest error of lew and illegality in passing the order of discharge by exceeding its jurisdiction.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no force in the contentions made on behalf of the revisionist and thus the revision is liable to be dismissed.
17. Consequently, the revision is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional court is upheld.
18. Copy of this order be placed before the Administrative Judge, Basti for perusal.