High Court · 2006

Judgment

1. St at e of Ut t ar anchal ..….Applicant Through Hom e Secret ary Ut t ar anchal, Dehradun

2. Sm t . Maya Devi W/ o Lat e Raj endra Prasad Sharm a R/ o Village Daudwala, Mohalla Mat hurawala Police St at ion Claim ant own, Dist rict – Dehradun ...Respondent s Shr i Vinod Shar m a, lear ned counsel for t he pet it ioner . Shr i Nandan Ar ya, lear ned G.A. for t he St ate H o n ' b l e J. C. S. Ra w a t , J. This present pet it ion has been filed u/ s 482 Cr.P.C. t o set aside t he order dat ed 30.05.2005 passed by t he Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun in Case No. 463 of 2004 St at e Vs. Maya Devi and order dat ed 18.07.2005 passed in Crim inal Revision No. 91 of 2005. Brief fact s for t he disposal of t his pet it ion ar e t hat an F.I .R. was lodged u/ s 420, 468, 471 and 120- B I .P.C. at Police St at ion Dalanw ala, Dist rict - Dehradun. The chargesheet w as subm it t ed against Maya Devi. During t he t rial t e applicant was exam ined as PW- 1 and Madan Lal was ex am ined as PW- 2 before t he t rial court . The furt her cross of t he wit nesses had been differed by t he court . The applicant - com plainant of t he case filed t he applicat ion before t he t rial court t hat t he Principal of Mat hur awala Prim ary School, Sm t . Sat ay aw at i had conspired wit h t he accused Sm t . May a Devi- respondent No. 2 for preparing false cert ificat e in t he nam e of t he accused Maya Devi- respondent No.2 and it was furt her alleged in t he applicat ion t hat Sm t . Pushpa Khanduri had also conspired wit h t he accused- respondent No.2 t o provide her em ploym ent . I t was furt her request ed t hat t here was sufficient evidence against t hem t o sum m on as an accused. The obj ect ions were filed against t he said applicat ion. The learned t rial Magist rat e r ej ect ed t he applicat ion on t he ground t hat t here w as no sufficient evidence t o sum m on t he present applicant u/ s 120B I .P.C. The learned Magist rat e also observed t hat t here is no clearcut evidence against Sm t . Pushpa Khanduri who is t he B.S.A. t hat she had conspired wit h t he applicant . The m ere averm ent in t he evidence is t hat t he accused wit h t he connivance of t he officials of t he depart m ent obt ained t he falos cert ificat e. I t w as furt her observed by t he learned t rial court t hat t here is no clear cut evidence against Sm t . Sat yawat i t o hat ches t he conspiracy wit h Maya Devi. The applicat ion was dism issed by t he t rial court . Thereaft er, t he revision pet it ion w as pr eferred and it was

dism issed by t he learned Sessions Judge and confirm ed t he order of t he learned t rial cour t . Feeling aggrieved by t he said order, t he present pet it ion has been preferred. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and peruse t he record. I t was cont ended on behalf of t he applicant t hat t he applicant - PW1 and PW2- m adan Lal had specifically given t he evidence about t he act ive involvem ent in t he conspiracy of t he B.S.A. and t he Principal of t he School w ho had issued t he cert ificat e. As such t her e is sufficient evidence t o sum m on t he Principal- Sm t . Sat ay awat i as well as B.S.A.- Sm t . Pushpa Khanduri. I t was fur t her cont ended t hat Sect ion 319 of Cr.P.C. provides t hat if it appears t o t he court t hat t here is involvem ent of t he ot he per sons, t he court m ay sum m on t he accused. Learned counsel for t he applicant t ried t o point out t hat t he word 'appear' used in Sect ion 319 Cr .P.C. is very significant and wide enough. The learned A.G.A. refut ed t he cont ent ion. Per usal of t he evidence r ecorded by t he t rial cour t reveals t hat t he applicant as well as Madan Lal has st at ed t hat t he B.S.A. office was involved in hat ching t he conspir acy. Ther e was no specific allegat ion against Sm t . Pushpa Khanduri, BSA. I t is also in t he evidence t hat t here is vague evidence t hat t he Principal of Mat hurawala School also involved in t he said conspiracy. To const it ut e t he conspiracy, t he chain of evidence m ust be com plet ed. Mere vague averm ent s ar e not sufficient . The word 'appears' has also been used u/ s 319 of t he Cr.P.C. I nt erpret at ion of t he word 'appear' used u/ s 319 Cr.P.C. cam e before t he Hon'ble Apex Court report ed t he case of Ch a n d r a Pa l Si n g h Vs. St a t e o f U.P. r e p o r t e d i n A . Cr . R, V o l . 1 5 , 1 9 9 1 p / 2 2 8 wherein it has been held in par a 4: " I t can be safely said for t he purpose of sum m oning a person for j oint t rial, t he court proceeding w it h t he inquiry of t he t rial should confine it self t o t he evidence adduced before it . The evidence collect ed during inv est igat ion cannot be basis for sum m oning a person for j oint t rial under Sect ion 319 ( 1) . Then t he word 'appear s' occurring in t his sect ion is significant . I t has been used at t wo places in t he sub sect ion and has sam e connot at ion. Word 'appears' does not m ean 'proves', it only signifies t hat t here is prim a- facie case against t he person sum m oned under Sect ion 319 ( 1) Cr.P.C. for j oint t rial. The t hird feat ur e of t his sub- sect ion is t hat t he power given in t he sub- sect ion is for j ust ice and t he court can ex ercise t his pow er suo m ot o or an applicat ion of any of t he par t ies. Under t his sub- sect ion a court has j urisdict ion t o sum m on a person even on t he applicat ion of com plainant . The only pre- requisit e is, it should appear from t he evidence t hat t he person sought t o be sum m oned, not being an accused, has com m it t ed any offence for w hich he should be t ried t oget her wit h t he accused." Thus it is clear by t he pronouncem ent of t he Apex Court t hat t here should be a prim a- facie case. The accused cannot be sum m oned only on t he basis of t he suspicion. There was no prim a- facie evidence against Sm t . Sat ay aw at i and Sm t . Pushpa Khanduri t o sum m on t hem in t his case. I n view of t he above observ at ion, I am com plet ely agreem ent wit h t he findings recorded by bot h t he court s below. I do not find any ground for int erference in t his m at t er Accordingly, t he pet it ion is dism issed. All applicat ions pending in t his case are st and disposed of in t erm s of t he j udgm ent . 2 nd May, 2006 Shiv ( J.C.S. Ra w a t , J.)