Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1007 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Balak Singh, son of Late Parmeshwari Singh, resident of village- Danialpur, P. S. Teghra in the district of Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 5 18-04-2012 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Begusarai Town P. S. Case No. 256 of 2005 appertaining to G. R. No. 1920 of 2005 by which petition dated 29.6.2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 258, 259, 260 263(A), 420, 414 and 467 IPC has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, as disclosed in the written report of the informant Rakesh Kumar Singh (Deputy Collector Incharge, Legal-cum-Certificate Officer, Begusarai) contained in letter No. 1 dated 8.8.2005 addressed to the Officer Incharge, Begusarai Town Police Station is that Certificate Case No. 2 of 2004-05, Punjab National Bank, Begusarai vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Certificate Case No. 3 of 2004-05, Punjab National Bank, Begusarai vs. Vikash Kumar, Certificate Case No. 1 of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1007 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 2 2003-04, Punjab National Bank, Sakarpura vs. Rameshwar Prasad Singh were pending in the court of the informant. The informant is said to have received information about the forged stamps being used in the certificate cases filed on behalf Punjab National Bank. It is said that on the order of the Collector of the District Begusarai, stamps were verified from the Treasury Officer, Begusarai and according to the verification report Stamps were not issued from the Treasury Officer. Further allegation is that the signature of the Treasury Officer and the Stamp Assistant found on the stamps were also forged. The Branch Managers of the Punjab National Bank are said to have submitted a written report to the effect that the certificate cases were prepared by their counsel, namely, Ram Balak Singh (Petitioner) and the Stamps were made available by him only for which payments were said to have been made to the accused-petitioner, Letters of the Branch Managers along with Verification Report of the Treasury Officer, Begusarai were enclosed with the written report. Under Letter dated 4.8.2005 issued by the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shakarpura dated 6.8.2005 issued by the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rahatpur, the informant of the present case i.e. the Certificate Officer was communicated to the effect that fresh stamps would be furnished Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1007 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 3 in these certificate proceedings after necessary sanction is accorded from the Superior Authority. Under letter dated 5.8.2005 issued by the Branch Manager, PNB, Begusarai, the present informant i.e. the Certificate Officer was also informed that stamps were purchased in certificate cases by the accused- petitioner with respect to the payments were made to him through his accounts on the basis of bills submitted by him under Letter No. 17 dated 29th July 2005, the informant appears to have sought report from the Treasury Officer, Begusarai with regard to genuineness of the stamps used in the certificate cases and upon which the Treasury Officer under letter No. 81 dated 29th July 2005 is said to have communicated to the present informant that stamps used in the certificate cases, were not issued from the Treasury, Begusarai and these stamps contained forged signature of the Stamp Assistant. On the basis of the reports and the written report of the informant, the case was registered on 8.8.2005. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet in this case vide Charge-sheet No. 355 dated 14th November 2005 on the basis of which cognizance was taken on 17.11.2005 for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and the case was transferred. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1007 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. No witness has come forward to support the accusation leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been found in possession of counterfeit government stamps. There is no material on the record to frame charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that investigation has been made into the allegation of the informant. After investigation police has submitted charge-sheet. From perusal of the carbon copy of the case-diary as well as supplementary case-diary it appears that there is sufficient material in the case-diary to frame charge against the petitioner. Learned Magistrate has given the details about the material in the case-diary for framing of charge against the petitioner and the petition filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.5.2011 and the order was passed to place the case on 27.6.2011 for framing of charge. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and other materials on the record including the case-diary it appears that learned Magistrate has considered the material on the record and has found sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioner. The petitioner has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1007 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 5 been directed to physically present on 27.6.2011 for framing of charge. It is well settled that at the time of framing of charge the Magistrate is not required to scrutinize the evidence as to whether the evidence will lead to conviction of the accused or not at the time of framing of charge. Learned Magistrate is required o

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.