IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 273 of 2004 Ram Singh Vishnoi S/o Shri Ram Chandra R/o Village Surjan Nagar P.S. Thakurddwara District Moradabad (U.P.) At present Ganna Supervisor in Sugar Mill Nadehi, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. R.S. Tomar S/o Shri Chandan Singh R/o Village Lautta P.S. Barout District Bagpat (U.P.) At present Principal Manager in Sugar Mill Bagpat, District Bagpat (U.P.) ……….Respondents. Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 120 of 2004, State Vs. Ram Singh Vishnoi and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.1991, a First Information Report (annexure-1) was lodged by Chief Cane Officer of Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, against the three accused namely Dharamveer, Vinod Kumar (resident of Meerpur), and Vinod Kumar (resident of Malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., which pertains to fabrication and forgery of cane slips, relating to payment of cane price to cane growers. After investigation of said First Information Report, on the basis of which crime No. 239 of 1991, was registered, charge-sheet in question was filed against the petitioner-Rams Singh Vishnoi. A separate charge-sheet appears to have been filed against other accused including those named in the First Information Report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to annexure-4 to the petition, which is copy of order, passed by Joint Cane Commissioner, refusing the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, pointed out that said order pertains to prosecution in respect of offence punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is argued on behalf of the State that no permission was required in connection with the forgery, committed by the petitioner, which was not an act in discharge of the official duty. 3 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 6. Therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that the points raised by the petitioner, before this Court as to his innocence, can be raised during trial before the trial court. And it is further observed that if the petitioner is not on bail, and surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:07.04.2010 Sweta (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4