IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 120 of 2009 Judgment reserved on : 6.11.2009 Date of decision : 11.11. 2009. Rajinder Mani …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner for setting aside order dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5- CRR/10 of 2006 and order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib in Criminal Case No. 23/2 of 2004 framing charge under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that F.I.R. No. 8 of 2002 _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 was registered against the petitioner and one Layak Ram at Police Station, Shillai under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that when he was posted as Panchayat Secretary he tampered with the date of birth of Layak Ram in Pariwar Register of Gram Panchayat. He changed the date of birth as 7.1.1955. The certificate issued on the basis of changed date of birth was used by Layak Ram for regularization and to get pensionary benefits. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented and the learned Judicial Magistrate framed the charge on 28.10.2005 as noticed above. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 28.10.2005 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in revision which was dismissed on 27.7.2009, hence this petition. 3 Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that precise allegations against the petitioner are that he was the custodian of the record which is alleged to have been tampered. It has been submitted that the handwriting expert has not supported the case of the prosecution nor there is any evidence on record prima facie establishing that petitioner has tampered the record. The birth certificate issued by the petitioner on 19.5.1999 indicates the date of birth of Raitu Ram ( Layak Ram) 7.1.1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully contended that the handwriting expert has nowhere stated that the tampering was done by the petitioner in the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that petitioner was the custodian of the record. In the Pariwar Register 3 Part-1, Ex.PA at page 89 against the entry of Layak Ram alias Raitu age has been given 42 years and immediately above it, the date of birth has been mentioned 7.1.1955. The prosecution case is that this entry of 7.1.1955 has been tampered. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that when Layak Ram alias Raitu obtained the birth certificate at that time petitioner was the custodian of the record. In the school leaving certificate of Layak Ram alias Raitu Ex. PW-2/A, his date of birth has been shown 31.03.1949. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it is for the custodian of the record to explain the tampering. It has also been observed that for constituting the offences, it is not necessary that tampering should be done by the custodian of the record himself. Such tampering can be done by someone in connivance with the custodian of the record. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charge the case is not to be seen that ultimately accused will not be convicted. At the time of framing of the charge, the scope is limited to the extent that whether on the basis of material on record case for framing the charge is made out or not. 5. In the present case, the two Courts below on the basis of material on record have recorded a finding that case for framing of the charge is made out. In the supervisory jurisdiction facts cannot be re-appreciated unless it is shown that the Courts below have taken perverse view or the case is of no evidence. The present case does not fall in that category. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case of error of jurisdiction or 4 perversity in the impugned order. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.12.2009. The Registry is directed to send the record of the trial Court immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. November 11, 2009 . ( Kuldip Singh ), (GRS) Judge.