- (1.) BY this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No. 469 of 2012, whereby the application of the revisionist, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that a first information report was lodged by one Devendra Singh against the revisionist and five other persons with allegations that the accused persons were members of the Management Committee of Purshottam Bagh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Agra and that in collusion with each other, they swindled a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the account of the Society and to cover up the act, fabricated a fictitious resolution No.8(5) in the minutes of the meeting dated 13.07.2011. An investigation was carried out whereupon a charge-sheet was laid. The Investigating Agency obtained attested copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.07. 2011 from the Union Bank of India, Dayalbagh branch, Agra, where the Society had opened its account and had submitted copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.07.2011. The Investigating Agency, however, could not procure the original of the minutes of the meeting. An application was submitted, seeking discharge. Simultaneously, an application was also given by the revisionist, purportedly under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to summon the original record of the resolution etc. The application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by order dated 09.07.2010. Against the order dated 09.07.2010, a writ petition No. 15388 of 2010 was filed before this Court, which was allowed by order dated 20.08.2010 with direction to the trial court to summon the original record before it considers whether charge should be framed against the petitioner or not. Pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2010, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, on 30.09.2010, passed an order, after recording a finding that the original of the document were in the custody of revisionist Moti Singh. By this order dated 30.09.2010, Moti Singh was directed to produce the original. Against this order dated 30.09.2010, the revisionist preferred Criminal Revision No. 4382 of 2010, before this Court, on the ground that an accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself. Accordingly, the criminal revision No. 4382 of 2010 was disposed of with the following observations:- " It is well settled law that the accused cannot be compelled to give any evidence against himself. The order of the learned lower Court is directive in nature, the accused may avail privilege available to him for non-production of the documents. According to the said principle, the Court will take up the matter and may draw the presumption whatever may be raised." After the aforesaid decision, the court below vide its order dated 17.07.2012 dealt with the application for discharge and rejected the said application finding sufficient material for the prosecution of the revisionist.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 17.07.2012, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, the present revision has been filed. I have heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh assisted by Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.A for the State and have perused the record.;