PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22. 1. 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 178/1997, by which the Trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused-petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY recapitulated, the facts of the case are that petitioner sought employment on compassionate ground on the death of her deceased husband late Girikant Upadhyaya, who dies while in employment. Along with the application form, petitioner submitted a marks-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal bearing roll No. 256422. She was given compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Senior Geologist, Banswara. A doubt crept in regarding the genuineness of the marks sheet and the verification was sought from the said Board. On verification by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, it was revealed that in the High Secondary Examination, 1984 conducted by the said Board, Roll No. 256422 was allotted to one Prahlad Yadav but he remained absent in the examination. Thus, on verification, the marks sheet submitted by the petitioner along with the application for compassionate employment, was found to be forged. An FIR containing these facts was lodged with Police Station, Bhupalpura by complainant Shri N. S. Bohra, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur, on which the police register FIR No. 249/96 for the aforesaid offences and after investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner before the Trial Court on 22. 4. 97. Vide order dated 9. 9. 1998, the Trial Court directed the SHO concerned for further investigation in the light of the directions given in that order. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 22. 1. 2005, the Trial Court framed the aforesaid charges against the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned order and the challan papers. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the perusal of the challan papers, no charge is made out against the petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that prima facie, there are sufficient material on record for framing the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. I have carefully perused the challan papers. Vide Annx. P/5, enclosing the copies of application form and the marks sheet submitted by the petitioner, a clarification was sought by the Additional Director (Admn.), Mines and Geology Department from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. In response thereto, vide letter Annx. P/6, the aforesaid Board informed the Director to the effect that in the Higher Secondary Examination, 1984, roll No. 256422 was allotted to one Prahlad Yadav S/o Shri Laxmi Narain, whose date of birth is 1. 1. 1961, but Shri Prahlad Yadav did not appear in the examination and as such 000 marks were given. Again, instead of Examination Centre No. 2225, the marks sheet submitted by the petitioner shows the Examination Centre No. 2223. Therefore, as per the verification report, the marks-sheet submitted by the petitioner did not tally with the official record of the Board and the Board gave the report to the effect that the said marks sheet submitted by the petitioner is forged one. Shri Jagdish Chandra, Headmaster, Government Upper Primary School, Nai Abadi, Banswara, in his police statement has stated that as per the school record, the petitioner passed VIII standard in the year 1976 and thereafter Transfer Certificate was issued to her. He has stated that the concerned record shall be submitted at the time of his evidence before the court.
(3.) THUS, there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner connecting her with the aforesaid offences. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the court need not deeply examine the probative value of the material on record. If on the basis of material on record, the court comes to the conclusion that accused have committed the offence, the court is obliged to frame the charge. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 as also Section 401 of the Code, held as under:- " Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt of otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. " ;