HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4069 of 2017 Revisionist :- [ENTITY] Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- [ENTITY],[ENTITY] Counsel for Opposite Party :- [ENTITY],[ENTITY],[ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2017, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 7th, Ghaziabad, In Case No. 1458 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. [ENTITY]), arising out of [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the revisionist for discharge.
Facts of the case is that, a first information report was registered against the revisionist for the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], arising out of [CASE NUMBER], wherein after investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the court. The revisionist filed an application under [SECTION] [ACT], which was dismissed with observation that the applicant may give discharge application before the court below. The revisionist had preferred application before the learned court below for discharge. On the said application both the parties were heard and after hearing and perusing the evidence on record, the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application by the impugned order.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the present criminal revision has been filed challenging the same on the basis that the order is absolutely illegal and not in consonance with the orders passed by this court on application under [SECTION] [ACT] It has been stated by the revisionist that it was a false case filed as counter blast to a case filed by the revisionist against the opposite party. It has further been submitted that earlier an order was passed on 09.08.2017 by which, discharge application was rejected and the order passed by the court below was set aside by the order dated 25.08.2017, in [CASE NUMBER] and matter was remanded back with certain observations and considering the law settled In the case of [PRECEDENT]. It has further been pointed out that when the investigation was pending, an expert report with regard to signature of the revisionist had been obtained by the Investigating Officer, which was objected and a report was also called from the Public Analyst, F.S.L. Prior to any report being filed by F.S.L., the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on the basis of the report of private analyst. It has further been pointed out that subsequently, the report of F.S.L. was submitted and the then Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that no case was being made out against the revisionist but because the charge sheet was filed earlier against the revisionist and cognisance was taken, therefore, the learned court below did not give weightage to the subsequent report of the Investigating Officer and proceeded with the case based on the charge sheet of the earlier Investigating Officer.
In this background, the revisionist was given opportunity to give a discharge application before the court below.
After hearing counsel for both the parties, the learned court below passed the impugned order and in the impugned order, it has been observed by the court below that the court has to look into both the reports, one filed by way of final charge sheet and other supplementary report, as both are part of the record.
The learned court below has also observed that the report one from private analyst and other from F.S.L. are contradictory to each other and in respect thereof, the learned court below has expressed the view that at this stage, it was not possible to give a finding on which the report is believable or correct. The court took view that this fact cannot be decided at this stage and it can be decided only after both the parties give their evidences.
The case is that the revisionist by publishing a forged letter pad and by putting a forge signature, deposited Rs. 6,68,000/- in U.P.F.C. and the same was dishonestly misappropriated by him. The nature of the dispute is such that certainly it will require not only oral but also examination of so many documents filed from both the sides. The view of the learned trial court that at the stage of framing charge or disposing the discharge application at length, appreciation of the evidence of both the parties which are required to be proved under law, is not possible. The learned trial court has left it open for both the sides to be decided after evidence at the stage of trial so that the final conclusion may be arrived at.
The learned trial court which had already taken cognizance on the charge sheet, which was filed earlier and considering the nature of the allegations made from both the sides expressed the view that the matter will be disposed of only after the evidence of the parties. It is true that the Supreme Court has held in [PRECEDENT]. (supra) that the application should be disposed of after considering the totality of the evidence on record, which is in favour of either of the parties.
I do not find that there is any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order nor there is any material irregularity or illegality. As such there is no need to interfere in the impugned order nor any fruitful purpose, except delay, will be served by interfering in the order, hence, I do not find any force in the revision.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
It has been lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is at present aged about 75 years and he is suffering from acute ailment relating to heart and, therefore, some protection at the stage of bail may be given to him.
Considering the above submission, it is observed that if within 30 days from today, the revisionist surrenders or appears before the court concerned and apply for bail, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of sympathetically considering his age and ailment, expeditiously preferably, on the same day.
For the above mentioned 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist.
Order Date :- 11.7.2019 sailesh