IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 897 of 2010 Pramod Kumar Sharma ……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State / respondent No. 1. Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE In the First Information Report, there is an allegation that applicant submitted a forged fax, depicting Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State seeks expeditious disposal of the application made by the applicant for obtaining an arms licence. This investigation resulted in filing of a charge sheet. In the charge sheet, it has been indicated that the said forged fax message was sent from a particular fax number, and that the owner of the said fax number is also one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the proposed trial. It is claimed that the said person has filed an affidavit in Court and has contended that the applicant did not use the said fax number for sending the said fax message or any other message. Principally, on that ground, the present application, under Section 482 of the Code, has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance thereon. 2. The fact remains that at the stage, at which the said affidavit was filed by the person concerned, could not be taken notice of by the Court. Only in the event the said witness had come to the witness box and had deposed that the said fax was not used by the applicant, then the applicant could rely upon the same. The other contention of the applicant is that he took strict stand in the matter of entrance in the forest of the State and, accordingly, faced anger of many people. The said contention has been made in order to insinuate that some such person may have had planted the fax, in order to malign the applicant as the applicant had no occasion to file any such forged fax in the background of the fact that the police 2 report was in his favour. The applicant, however, has not stated that the owner of the fax machine, which was used in generating the forged fax in question, was one of those who became angry against the applicant by reason of any action or conduct on the part of the applicant. 3. The applicant contends that he had many documents in his possession, including appreciations by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and some of those have been lost, and those may have had been utilized for fabricating the forged fax. That may be so, but whether that has, in fact, taken place in the instant case will only be revealed when evidence is tendered and the same is considered. On that ground, the charge sheet cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code; the application fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.04.2011 Amit