- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This revision has been filed by the revisionists Virendra Mishra, Vishwanath Dubey and Anil Kumar against the order dated 22-3-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2001 whereby the revision has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 12-4- 2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 440 of 2000, State v. Vishwanath Dubey and Ors. , whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, IPC.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that in the present case the F. I. R. was registered in case crime No. 150 of 1996 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, IPC at P. S. Kotwali Basti, district Basti alleging therein that there was a racket active in district Basti which was indulged in preparing the forged certificates and marksheets of High School, Intermediate and B. T. C. , on the basis of the same forged certificates the members of this racket used to get appointment in primary schools as a teacher in collusion with officials of the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari and they used to grave money dishonestly from the persons who were curious for getting illegal appointments. THE revisionists are the active members of this racket, they are related to each other. One Smt. Suman Devi, the daughter of Virendra Nath Misra who is married with revisionist Anil Kumar, the revisionists got the appointment of Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of revisionists Virendra Kumar Mishra as a teacher in primary school, Barauli, district Basti by impersonating procuring the certificates and marksheets of High School, Intermediate and B. T. C. of one another girl Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Prem Chandra Mishra, resident of village Barha, P. S. Kaundhiyara, district Allahabad, she is wife of Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, resident of village Pandey Ka Pura (Chhibaiya), P. S. Sarai Inayat, district Allahabad. THE revisionists by playing a fraud and deceiving the D. I. O. S. Basti got the appointment of Smt. Suman Devi, the daughter of Virendra Nath Misra in a primary school, Barauli, Basti and the salary was drawn from the Government treasury, when the complaint was made regarding the aforesaid illegal appointment, her salary was withheld by the department concerned but the revisionists got the enquiry closed against Smt. Suman Devi by producing false affidavit and forged photocopy of Pariwar Register. On the basis of the complaint made against Smt. Suman Devi, she was terminated from the service by B. S. A. on 11-8-1995, with regard of the said allegation, a complaint was made by one Harish Pratap Singh, Advocate also. After lodging the F. I. R. The matter was investigated by the police of P. S. Kotwali and after completing the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists on 1-6-1999 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, IPC. On the basis of charge- sheet submitted by the I. O. the learned C. J. M. Basti has taken the cognizance and summoned the revisionists to face the trial but discharge the application filed by the revisionists has been allowed on 12-4-2001 and the revisionists were discharged for the offence punishable under Sections, 419, 420, 467 and 468, IPC by holding that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused persons for framing the charge in the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the above order, the State of U. P. has preferred a revision No. 208 of 2001, the same was allowed and set aside the order dated 12-4-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Basti on 22-3-2007 and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate concerned to decide the case in accordance with law, it was also directed to decide the case expeditiously, if possible within a period of six months. The impugned order dated 22-3-2007 is under challenged in the revision in the hand. Heard Sri G. P. Dixit, learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A. G. A. and Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2 Adya Prasad Tiwari.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order dated 22-3-2007 is illegal, it is based on inadmissible evidence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Basti could not have allowed the revision on the question of fact. IT is further contended that in the present case Smt. Suman Devi, the alleged impersonator who got the service on the basis of the forged documents has not been made accused and she has not been charge-sheeted. The I. O. has not interrogated Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Sri Prem Chandra Mishra whose documents were used by Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Virendra Nath Misra even her father has also not been interrogated and there is no material collected by the I. O. to show that any forged documents have been used and no material has been collected by the I. O. to show that the revisionists have hatched a conspiracy and impersonating of the same they got the appointment of Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Virendra Nath Misra on the basis of certificates and marksheets of Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Sri Prem Chandra Mishra. IT is further contended that the material against the revisionists is not sufficient for the conviction of the revisionists. Learned C. J. M. , Basti has rightly discharged the revisionists for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, IPC by holding that matter is under enquiry and prior its result it is not proper to proceed further against the revisionists. No official of the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari was interrogated and no such record has been collected by the I. O. during investigation even if it is assumed only Smt. Suman Devi can be made the accused but there is no evidence to show the involvement of the revisionists. If the Suman Devi was not charge-sheeted the present revisionists only being her relatives cannot be charge-sheeted. The revisional Court committed a manifest error in setting aside the order dated 12-4-2001 passed by learned C. J. M. , Basti, the order of the revisional Court is not passed after considering the material collected by the I. O. IT is based on conjunctures and surmises. The order dated 22-3-2007 is illegal and liable to be set aside. In reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2 that the proper investigation has not been done by the I. O. Even the statement of Smt. Suman Devi, daughter of Prem Chandra Misra was not recorded and under the influence of revisionists of Virendra Nath Misra, a main accused has not been charge-sheeted, but on the basis of material collected by the I. O. prima facie offence is made out and involvement of the revisionists in commission of the alleged offence is established. The learned C. J. M. has tried to weigh the truthfulness of the allegation and the material collected by the I. O. was meticulously analysed for which he was not legally permitted because, at this stage it is to be seen whether on the basis of material collected by the I. O. prima facie is made out or not. It is not a stage to draw any conclusion that the material is sufficient for conviction or not. The learned C. J. M. has passed erroneous order which has been rightly set aside by the revisional Court. The revisional Court has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order which is a well reasoned. Therefore, the impugned order may not be quashed.;