^.•^L^^ff^^^^^^T*^' ^,%^^^^-^^r^^ ^^^..^,:.;:^'^ :.:;•:..-;^.^,,^'':^^~^ WSSiS!MSSS' SSie!S"sSy^@:"fSS''Ssy iEi;t?i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILACTUR APPUCANT VERSUS CR.M.P. No. 535/2009 Ajimuddiu aged 22 yeara, son of Shri Fakhruddm, resident of Jyotipur, Pendraroad, PoUce Station Gaurela, District Bilaspur (Chliattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh fhrough fhe PoUce Station Katghora, district Korba (Chhatfegarh). APPLICATION UNDER SBCnON 482 OE* THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. (SB :Hon'Ue Mr. T.P-SIiarma, J.) Present:-. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, P.L. for the State/non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passedoa 26/10/2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of fhe Code of Crtmiual Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the crmunal proceediag pendtag before fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Ka^hora, District Korba ia Sessions Trial No. 74/09 on fhe ground that contmuance of proeeeding agam.st the petitioner would amoimt to abuse of process of the Court. 2. Leanied couasel for fhe parties are heard. 3. Copy ofthe chai^e sheet aud order sheet perused. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner veheiuently argued fhat at the instaace ofco-accused under Section 27 oftbe Evideuce Act coniputer aud ofher parts of the coraputer have been recovered fixiin the present appUcant and except fhis recoveiy no inaterial has been coUected by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with critne in question. •ii ifasy'sta,, ,^''.A- "» ^»-i"»li "ia /t. ..L. 1 li' 1i}'-isSiS&. ? I 'lt8S»i5^i '§ I l. <.-.JJ 't-, '^s'"''.// -2 5. Learaed counsel for ffac petitioncr furfher argued fhat if the seizure ofthe computer along wifh other parts is aduutted ui its face value by the petitioner then saine would not be sufficient for convictiag fhe petitioner therefore auy continuauce of criminal proceediug relating to the present petitioaer would amount to abuse ofprocess ofthe Court. 6. On the other hand, leamed coiinsel for the State/non-applicaut opposed fhe petition aad subxnits that definitely no aatple material of fhe evidence has been coUected by fhe prosecution but at the iustance of co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act computer and other parts of fhe coniputer by which forged RC book have been prepared have been found in possession of the petitioner aad if fbs fact that coiaputer axtd other parts by which forged RC book has been prepared is aduutted by fhe petitioner fhen same would be sufficient for conviction offhe petitioner along with other co-accused. 7. Accordiug to the case ofthe prosecutionfhis is acase oftheft of motorcycle and preparation of the foi^ed RC book by computer along with other part of the coinputer which were fozuad ia possession offhe petitioner has been used for preparation ofthe forged RC book, fhis is not simple recoveiy of computer and its parts but recoveiy of coiaputer and its part by which forged RC book is set to have been prepared. This evidence is sufficient for taking cognizance agaiust the petitioner and niay be sufficjent for drawing further inference. Therefore, I do not find any case for quashiuent of the proceediag relatiug to fhe petitioner. J Consequently, fhis petitton is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed, Sd/- T.P, Sharma Judge l;.,rf'