Court No. - 49
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6615 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Vriksh & 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Dayal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vishwanath Mishra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 1.9.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. First, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2015 (Ram Vraksh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.), and impugned order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case No. 2306/2015, by which the discharge application filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
It appears that the prosecution has been lodged against the petitioners and six others with respect to fabrication of the certain documents chiefly a document described as a regularization order dated 4.2.1983, by which the petitioners claim that their services were regularized in the institution. The prosecution case appears to be that the said order is wholly fabricated and non existant. In this regard, the order dated 4.2.1983 is claimed to have been cancelled by a communication dated 22.6.1986. At present, there does not appear to be any dispute as to the existence document dated 22.6.1986.
The case of the petitioners hinges on the assertion that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his order dated 31.8.1999, had accepted the claim of the petitioners for regularization and, therefore, the allegation of fabrication of the document dated 4.2.1983 looses its significance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard also placed reliance on paragraphs 2 to 5 of the discharge application wherein besides stating that the petitioners services had been regularized by the order dated 4.2.1983, it was further asserted that other persons who had been similarly regularized by the same order have not been faced with criminal prosecution and no FIR has been lodged against them.
Learned court below has rejected the discharge application on the reasoning that the defence being set up by the petitioners apart, at present by virtue of report submitted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 19.4.1999, it appears that the petitioners had obtained appointment and regularization against a forged and fabricated document. Rest of the matters have been left open to be examined at the stage of framing of charge.
In view of the fact that the prosecution case appears to be based on a document that cannot be questioned at this stage and further in view of the fact that defence is being set up independent of the prosecution documents can neither be considered at this stage nor such defence arises the strength photocopy of a document, it is difficult to find fault in the order rejecting the discharge application.
Further, the fact that the prosecution is directed against only nine persons and not against certain other persons, cannot be matter to be cited as a ground to seek discharge at this stage. The petitioners shall have full opportunity to lead such evidence as they may be advised to support their case during the trial.
However, such claim cannot be examined prematurely at the stage of discharge. It is further stated that the petitioners have already been enlarged on bail. Since, the trial has remained pending for a long time, it is expected that the same may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order by either party.
The present petition is thus disposed of. Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Mini