Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.325 of 2006 ====================================================== Md.Zubair Khan s/o Md. Kurban Khan, resident of village- Sunderpur, P.S. Pirpainty, in the District of Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md. Khalikur Rahman @ Khonu Md. Kurban Khan, resident of village- Patharpura, P.S. Kahalgaon, in the Distrit of Bhagalpur. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. M. RAB, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh no.2, with Mr. Umesh Kumar & Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 7 13-08-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th March 2006 passed in G.R. No. 1750 of 2003/ Tr. No. 1159 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur, acquitting the accused opposite party no.2 for charges under [STATUTE] , has preferred the present revision application under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment of acquittal. Admittedly, the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are full brothers. Occurrence is said to have taken place on 20th June 2003. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner went to the house of accused opposite party no.2, his elder brother, where the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.325 of 2006 (7) dt.13-08-2012 2 / 3 2 licensed rifle and other papers belonging to the petitioner were allegedly snatched by opposite party no.2 by putting him under fear of death and signature of the petitioner was obtained on certain plain papers. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial court has come to a finding that prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts and by giving the benefits of doubts, accused opposite party no.2 has been acquitted for the aforesaid charges. It is admitted case of the parties that the rifle in question, which was subject matter of alleged extortion, was never recovered either from the possession or from the house of the opposite party no.2. It is also admitted case of the parties that during the course of investigation rifle in question was not seized by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that just after two months of the alleged occurrence the opposite party no.2 had sold the rifle in question to a third person, but despite information given by the petitioner, the police had not taken proper action for recovery of the said rifle from the possession of the alleged transferee. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has refuted the claim of the petitioner. According to him, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had himself sold the rifle in question to a third person and, therefore, there was absolutely no material for proving the charge under [STATUTE] . It is also the case of the opposite party no.2 that the plain paper, on which signature of the petitioner was allegedly obtained, has not been converted into any valuable documents. After having heard the parties and in view of the factual Patna High Court CR. REV. No.325 of 2006 (7) dt.13-08-2012 3 / 3 3 aspects of the case, noticed above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional powers for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.