Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Petitioner challenging order dated 29.07.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby it dismissed Petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 111/2006 and maintained order dated 31.07.2006 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, in Case No. 197/2005, thereby learned trial court framed charge against accused -Petitioner for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that if prosecution case is taken on its face value even then no offence is made out against Petitioner. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as there is no evidence available on record indicating that he had any knowledge that co -accused Rajendra Kumar is going to commit any offence. It is further contended that Petitioner neither submitted any cheque nor withdrew any amount on the name of Rajendra Kumar or complainant. Petitioner has not prepared any forged document. It is next contended that witnesses have named Babulal Son of Shivbux as accused whereas Petitioner's name is Babulal Son of Bajranglal and it is not the case of prosecution that Petitioner had opened any forged account or Petitioner had signed any cheque, and thus it is clear that Petitioner was not involved in conspiracy. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties and perused material on record, I am of the view that at the stage of framing of charge what is required to be seen is whether prima facie a case is made out or not. Letter dated 30.03.1998 was written to Branch Manager of Bank on letter pad of Arjun Agro Agencies which authorized co -accused Rajendra to do transaction on behalf of the firm. The letter and accounting opening form, which was marked as Q -1, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and its report shows that writing of the letter has tallied with writing on accounting opening form and writing on Q -1 is of Petitioner Babulal. It is also clear that payment on one cheque was received by Petitioner. In view of above, prima -facie case is made out against Petitioner and trial court has not committed illegality in framing charge against Petitioner. Petition is dismissed accordingly.;