GAURAV ARORA @ GINNI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Gaurav Arora @ Ginni
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Barish Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) A First Information Report was lodged alleging that two trucks load of wheat, contained in 300 bags belonging to Zila Panchayat and meant to be distributed under a Scheme, known as SGRY, co the beneficiaries of the said Scheme, were handed over to the person named in the FIR for taking the same to his shop, but instead of taking the same to his shop, those wheats were sought to be taken to Rishikesh and in order to facilitate taking of those wheats to Rishikesh, certain forged Mandi receipts accompanied the wheat. That First Information Report has led to filing of a charge -sheet, cognizance where on has been taken. In the charge -sheet, the name of the applicant has come. Principally, because the applicant was not named in the FIR, he has questioned the charge -sheet and the order taking cognizance thereon. It is the contention of the applicant that there is no material in the charge -sheet, on the basis whereof charge can be framed against the applicant. If that be so, he is required to approach the Magistrate and seek discharge. He cannot do so by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next contended that the applicant has been charge sheeted because of his alleged involvement in forgery of those Mandi receipts, inasmuch as, they are in his name. It is being contended that when the receipts are forged, mentioning of the name of the applicant in those receipts should also be deemed to be forgery and as such, the applicant cannot be said to be involved in the crime alleged. The question that is required to be gone in is, whether assistance was taken of those receipts for the purpose of enabling sale of the wheat in question. If those receipts were used and those were issued in favour of the applicant, then the applicant is in difficulty. If, however, those receipts are not genuine receipts and randomly, names were put in the receipts and as a result, the name of the applicant came to be recorded on those receipts, the situation will be different. However, these are matters of evidence to be gone in, only when evidence is appropriately tendered. These matters cannot be brought in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application fails and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed is vacated.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.