In fact submission raised on behalf of the companyplainant pertaining to numberapplicability of Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
37/97.
2 was the beneficiary of the letter which was addressed to him hence the companyrts below ought to have taken companynizance of the offence.
The brief facts of the case necessary to be numbered for deciding this appeal are A letter dated 10.04.1992 was purported to be issued by Regional Manager, RIICO, Sriganganagar to the Respondent No.
2 on 23.04.1992 to produce the original companyy of the letter within 24 hours.
P.C. for rejecting the Protest Petition of the appellant.
P.C. are number attracted.
2/84 titled M s. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt.
Aggrieved against the order dated 20.06.2009, a Revision Application was also filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge by the appellant which has been dismissed on 22.07.2011.
The letter was number produced before the office of Respondent No.
The appellant who was working as Regional Manager and had allegedly signed the above letter when came to know about the letter dated 10.04.1992, he asked Respondent No.
The Revisional Court vide its order dated 21.07.2003 set aside the order of Subordinate Court and directed the Subordinate Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after companysidering the evidence on file on merit.
Thus, numberbenefit can be availed by appellant on the strength of above submission.
P.C. rather looking to the materials on record came to the companyclusion that prima facie case of forged document and playing fraud have number been made out against the accused.
P.C. came to an end in favour of the appellant.
2 rather on 27.04.1992 the letter was produced by his companynsel in Suit Case No.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, present is a case where letter dated 10.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged letter number signed by appellant.
The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court dated 22.07.2011, does number rely on Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
P.C. has been accepted by the Courts below as already numbered above.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate did number rely on Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
P.C. were number attracted and there was numberprohibition in law in taking companynizance of the offence.
Ltd. Vs.
The Criminal Revision was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 12.03.2003.
P.C. held that letter having been filed in civil suit, companynizance cannot be taken.
Thus, the issue of Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
After the order of Revisional Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again companysidered the matter and by order dated 20.06.2009 rejected the Protest Petition of appellant.
Thus, the submission on the basis of Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to the Report No.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court has companysidered the material on record and came to the companyclusion that numberprima facie case is made out against the accused that he has companymitted any forgery or played any fraud in forging the document.
The Revisional Court also after companysidering all the submissions of appellant have dismissed the Revision on merits.
ASHOK BHUSHAN J. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 07.02.2017 of Rajasthan High Court dismissing Single Bench Criminal Miscellaneous Petition which was filed by the appellant questioning the judgment dated 22.07.2011 of Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the appellant.
The provisions of Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
P.C. can number be granted to the accused in the present case.
Subsequent the order passed by the Revisional Court, matter was number carried on any further for the accused.
P.C. are number relevant for deciding the present appeal.
The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly companyrect and calls for numberinterference.
