- (1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.22/2011 whereby the learned trial Court has ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, Section 5/9B and 5/9C of the Exlosives Act, 1884 and for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that one Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, Head Constable lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur on 5.9.2010 about an incident allegedly to have taken place between 1.4.2010 and 5.9.2010 on the basis of the findings of a committee constituted by District Magistrate, Dholpur. On the basis of the written report, FIR No.427/2010 for the offences under Sections 5/9B and 5/9C of the Explosives Act, 1884 and for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC was registered . The role of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was a Notary, after investigation found is that he in the capacity of a Notary attested forty declaration forms which were signed by coaccused-Shri Udailal Kabra showing himself to be one Shri Rajendra Chaubey. The learned Court below after hearing the respective parties ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the same, has come to this Court by way of this Revision Petition.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in the capacity of an authorized Notary attested the signatures of the proprietor of M/s Sangam Explosives on one RE-11 form and he also made entry of the attestation in his register at S.No.1636 and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with some of the co-accused and falsely attested the aforesaid form knowing well that the person, who has signed on the form is one Shri Udailal Kabra and not Shri Rajendra Chaubey in whose name Shri Udailal Kabra signed on the form more particularly in view of the fact that on the form photo of Shri Udailal Kabra was pasted and not that of Shri Rajendra Choubey. It was further submitted that it is not the requirement of law that a Notary attesting a document must personally know each and every person who comes before him for attestation and, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to verify the fact that the person who is signing before him is Shri Rajendra Chaubey and not any other person. Inviting attention of the Court towards Section 13 of the Notary Act, it was also submitted that no Court can take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf but in the present case learned Court below overlooking this legal requirement took cognizance against the petitioner and thereafter ordered to frame charge against him. It was submitted that CBI interrogated the petitioner at its office at Jaipur and he made a statement during his interrogation that he can identify the person who came to him for attestation of the aforesaid form but CBI wrongly made the petitioner an accused instead of making him a witness. It was submitted that although at the time of framing of charge for an offence detailed analysis is not required to be made of the evidence collected during investigation but at the same time it is a legal requirement that it is to be seen whether essential ingredients to constitute the offence are available or not but in the present case learned Court below mechanically framed the charge for each and every offence for which charge-sheet has collectively been filed even against the petitioner.;