GARG, J. - (1.) ALL the above four revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as they all have been preferred against the order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 1/2000, by which the learned Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate Ordered to frame charges against the accused petitioners in the following manner:- Name of accused petitioners Charges ordered to be framed (1) P. C. Jain 1208 r/w 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC (2) O. P. Sharda (3) Chiman Jagwani (4) Murli Kriplani 120b r/w 420/511, 467, 468, 471 and 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC
(2.) IT may be stated here that vide order dated 1. 12. 2000, all the accused petitioners were charged in compliance of the order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. It may further be stated here that this Court vide order dated 21. 5. 2001 passed in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 58/2001 directed that the revision petition pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur being Revision No. 15/2001 be called for an listed alongwith the other three revision petition and accordingly, the revision petition No. 15/2001 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge NO. 2, Jodhpur was called and it was got registered in this Court and new number was given being S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 462/2001 and listed alongwith other three revision petitions and in these circumstances, all the four revision petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Before proceeding further, designation of all the four petitioners at the relevant time may be mentioned here:- Name of the accused petitioners Designation (1) P. C. Jain Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch No. 1 M. G. H. Road, Jodhpur (2) O. P. Sharda Surveyor/loss Assessor, United India Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur (3) Chiman Jagwani Partner in M/s Bombay Motors, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur. (4) Murli Kriplani Incharge, Workshop of M/s. Bombay Motors, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions, in short, are as follows:- On the basis of reliable sources, FIR No. RC JDH 2000 A 0005 dated 28. 4. 2000 was chalked out by the Superintendent of Police, Special C. B. I. , Jodhpur (Raj.) and that information was to the effect that the accused petitioner P. C. Jain, while functioning as Public Servant in capacity as a Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch No. 1, M. G. H. Road, Jodhpur during the year 1997 abused his official position, dishonestly and fraudulently entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused petitioner O. P. Sharda, Surveyor/loss Assessor, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Jodhpur and M/s. Bombay Motors, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur to facilitate payment of insurance claim in connection with insurance policy of a new Car vide Policy No. 140501/31/11/749 issued in May, 1997, by the accused petitioner PC Jain in the name of M/s. Bombay Motors, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur for a period covering the journey "dombivali to arrival at Jodhpur" in the showroom of M/s. Bombay Motors. The said diesel car, Model Premier 138, which was purchased from M/s. Pal Pangest Ltd. Dombivali Distt. Thana, was transported to Jodhpur in Jan. 1997 in new condition. A false insurance claim was made by M/s. Bombay Motors, Jodhpur by showing car accident at Karodra Char Rasta on Bombay-Ahmedabad Highway near Surat (Gujarat) on 11. 5. 1997 at 8. 30 PM while on the way from Dombivali to Jodhpur. It was further stated in the FIR that on 9. 5. 1997, accused petitioner PC jain issued one policy (B) No. 140501/31/11/749 in favour of M/s. Bombay Motors, Jodhpur, which covered two premier diesel care costing Rs. 3,15,000/- each. The date of commencement of the insurance was given for the transit period i. e. from "dombivali to arrival at Jodhpur showroom". The engine number and chassis number of the car in dispute was shown as 10269 and 80848 respectively, covered by policy cover note No. 366829. It was further stated in the FIR that on 13. 5. 1997, M/s. Bombay Motors, Jodhpur submitted a letter to the accused petitioner PC Jain stating therein that one premier Car 1380 chassis No. 84848, engine No. 10209 met with an accident during transit and, therefore, Surveyor be deputed to their Workshop for inspection and doing the needful. On the same day, the accused petitioner PC Jain called accused petitioner OP Sharda, who is registered Surveyor and Loss Assessor, and asked him to conduct survey of accidental car at Workshop of M/s. Bombay Motor, Jodhpur, though he was not competent to do so. It was further stated in the FIR that on the very day, accused petitioner OP Sharda conducted survey and submitted his report on the same day stating that chassis number of accidental car was 80848 and engine number was 138x10209 and place of accident was Char Rasta, Karodra hear Surat, while M/s. Bombay Motors, Jodhpur in its letter dated 13. 5. 1997 shown engine No. 10209 and in policy its engine number was shown as 102669. The accused petitioner OP Sharda gave original estime of Rs. 80,000. 21 and assessed payable loss of Rs. 67,592. 22. During survey, accused petitioner O. P. Sharda also snapped photographs of the car, which show that two persons wearing sweaters were standing near the accidental car, while there was accute hot in the months of May, 1997. Thus, accused petitioner submitted fake photographs and documents of the accidental vehicle with his report. It was further stated in the FIR that that when the claim note was sent to Divisional Office of the Insurance Company at Jodhpur, the investigation of the said claim was entrusted to Shri N. S. Chauhan and during investigation, it was found that the car in question (accidental car chassis No. PA 12. 080848, engine No. PA 138d 102009) was sold to one Kheta Ram on 24. 5. 1997 and it was got registered on 27. 5. 1997 and registration number was RJ 19/1c 0220. Shri Chauhan inspected the Premier Diesel Car 138d bearing chassis No. PA 080848 and engine No. PA 138d 10209 and it was found that the car's plastic coating of both fenders, control top seal etc. were original and fresh and unaccidented. Thus, M/s. Bombay Motors, Jodhpur in criminal conspiracy with the accused petitioners P. C. Jain and O. P. Sharda managed to place a Fiat Car bearing registration No. RJ 19/1327 of accused petitioner PC Jain and prepared a job card No. 0324 dated 13. 5. 1997 as a false evidence to prove the fake claim to be genuine. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Shri S. R. Purohit, Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, Jodhpur and During investigation, he came to the conclusion that all the accused petitioners made a conspiracy and in pursuance of that conspiracy, they shown a good car as accidental car and for that they made a forged claim of Rs. 65, 092,22/- and by doing so, they tried to get themselves benefited by foul means and they tried to deceit the Insurance Company fraudulently and dishonestly and thus, they committed the offence punishable under Sections 120b read with 420, 467, 468, 471, 420/511 IPC etc. After usual investigation, on 14. 9. 2001, the Inspector of Police, CBI, Jodhpur filed a chargesheet in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and after going through the relevant papers on record, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate, SBI Cases, Jodhpur vide order dated 18. 11. 2000, came to the conclusion that prima facie case exists for framing of charges for the offence under section 120b r/w 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC against accused petitioner PC Jain and for the offence under Section 120b r/w 420/511, 467, 468, 471 and 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC against accused petitioners O. P. Sharda, Chiman Jagwani and Murli Kriplani and accordingly, charges were ordered to be framed against the accused petitioners. Aggrieved from the said order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur, the accused petitioners have filed these revision petitioners. In these revision petitioners, it was submitted on behalf of the accused petitioners Chiman Jagwani and O. P. Sharda that in no case, charges for the offence under sections 467 and 468 IPC can be framed against them and similarly, no case is made out against the accused petitioner Murli Kriplani and for the accused petitioner P. C. jain, it has been argued that against him, there is zero evidence as he was simply Branch Manager and he has simply appointed accused petitioner O. P. Sharda as Surveyor and by doing so, he has committed no offence. Hence, it was prayed that these revision petitions be allowed and the impugned order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India supported the impugned order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record of the case. The question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur ordering to frame charges against the accused petitioners, can be sustained or not. ;