1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :09.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.87 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Annakkodi ...Revision Petitioner/Accused Vs. State Rep. By:: The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Cr.No.54 of 2006. ...Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.3242 of 2010 in C.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti dated 23.11.2010 and to set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan O R D E R The allegation against the revision petitioner is that she produced 10th Standard School Certificate for the purpose of getting appointment as a Village Administrative Officer and subsequently, the same was found to be bogus. In this regard, Criminal prosecution was launched against the revision petitioner for the alleged commission of offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. 2. The revision petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, filed an application for discharge in Cr.M.P.No.3242 of 2010 in C.C.No.65 of 2009 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and the same was dismissed and challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even assuming without admitting that the materials relied on by the prosecution are taken on its face value true one, since ingredients of the offences have not been made against the petitioner, she is entitled for discharge. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the materials collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation, prima-facie disclose the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the said commission of offences and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, more particularly the statements of witnesses annexed to the charge sheet. 6. The statement of witnesses prima-facie disclose a forged 10th standard mark sheet has been utilised for the purpose of getting employment. The point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has passed 10th standard by way of private study and she has also retired from service cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in this revision and the said point could be urged only during the course of trial. 7. This Court after considering the rival submissions and perusal of the materials available on record is of the considered view that that there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court and therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. The observations made herein is only for the purpose of disposing this Criminal Revision Case and this Court has not touched upon the merit of the case as well as the defence projected by the accused. It is needless to say that the case in C.C.No.65 of 2009 shall be disposed of by the Court below based on the quality of evidence made available before it. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR sj To: The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti. COPY TO: THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. DM:2011::MARCH:17::: Crl.R.C.(MD) No.87 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 09.03.2011 2P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/