ili cs» HI&H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT KLAWUR Cr.W.P. No. 428of2 SB •• Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J. PETITIONBi Rarnchondr-a S/o Prem Nai aqed about 38 years, ft/o ftajanawagaon, Chouki Bhoramdeo P.S. ' Kiuurdha tiistt. Kabirdham (G.6.) Vs. RESPONDENT State. of Chhattisgarh throu9h t>istrict AAagistrate, Kabirdham(C.&.) (APPLICATrON UN&ER SECTTON 48Z OF THE CO&E OF CKEMINAL PROCEbURE) Present:- j Mr. S. Imtinz A!i, counsel for the pe+itioner. j Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel 'lawyer for the State/respondent. ORALORbBi (Passed on 12th September', 2008) This petition is directed aguinst the- order doted 20.6.2008 passed by the Se-ssions .Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), in Criminal Revision No. 13/08 by tehich the iearned Sessions Judge affirmmg the ('rde.r frcuningcharge passed by the Judicia! Magistrdte First C!ass, Kabirdham, in CriminatCaseNo. 668/06 videorde-r doted 3.12.2007 nn the ground that without ony prima facie mcrt'erial.courts betow have frame-d the charge against the applicmt for the "ffence puni^abte under Se-ctions 420, 468 1 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, i 2. I.A. No. 01/2008, application for exemption from fillng copy of cha!la". For the reasons mentioned in the applicction, it is altowe-d, 3. I have he-ard learned counsel for the parties- 4. Learned counse! for the opplic<mt submitsthnt the alleged docum^nt was not in possession of the appticantwd he has not forged dnydocum^its md also not misappropraateAth®puyiic ffloney, birt w :f;fSf i ^SsS ;1»1 - 2-. Vnf-i.i &•- material, the-tria! court has fromed the charge againsl- the appticant and the same was mointaine-d in criminat revision. 5- I have perused the order impugned. From perusal of the order impugned, it reyeals thct there is prima facie material against- the pe-titione'r thcrt' he was poste-d as Salesmun. He was not under an obligotion to supervise- or corapietiQn cerl-ificate or valid the wor-k nf constr-uction, but he has tempered the documents relcrt-ing'to such superyision/ compietion, violatlpn and misappropritrtion the public money. It also re-veals thfft- at the jnstcmce of Sarpanch $outriha Ram, the appliccnt has forged the coupon and on the-basis of materitt! avallabte on record.the+railcourt- has framed the charge. The- same- was confirmed in criminQ! revision. I do not find any illegality or ground for inyoking inherent jurisdiction. 6. Con-sequen+ly, the petition being deyoid of merit is Hable-to be dismissed aid it Is here-by dismissed crt the- stage. of admission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •:rsii paK^Utti -