Judgment:
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated October 22, 1986, passed by the Sessions Judge Jalore, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. Bhoor Singh Purohit on August 28, 1978, filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, to the effect that Kaliyan Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Santhu, falsely signing himself or by getting it signed by some other person the application form for allotment of land on behalf of his minor son War Singh, presented the same before the Tehsildar, Jalore, and got allotment in favour of War Singh by the Committee, in which he himself was a member. He got this land allotted in his minor son's name on May 31, 1978. A complaint was made against the allotment but he again made an application for allotment of land in the name of his minor son War Singh by getting it signed by himself or through any other person and presented the application before the Tehsildar, Jalore, which he got it allotted in his minor son's name and is still in possession of that land. This complaint filed by Bhoor Singh was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, by his order dated September 21,1981 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bagra for investigation and on this complaint, a First Information Report was registered at the Police Station, Bagra on January 19, 1979. The police after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused Under Sections 420, 467 and 4711.P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the accused and issued process. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments by his order dated October 1, 1982, framed the charges against the petitioner Under Sections 471, 419 and 420 IPC. Dissatisfied with the order dated October 1, 1982, passed by the Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, who, by his order dated October 22, 1986, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the present miscellaneous petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no charge should have been framed against the petitioner as no case for framing the charge has been made-out from the evidence collected by the police during investigation. He has further submitted that his signatures does not tally with the signatures which were found on the application forms and it has not come in evidence that the petitioner has signed the application. He, therefore, submitted that the ingredients of the offences Under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. are not fulfilled and, therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner should be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Court below as well as the record of the case. I have also gone-through the whole evidence collected by the investigating agency during investigation as well as the documents collected by the police during investigation. After a careful reading of all the evidence. I am of the view that prima facie a case Under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. for framing the charges against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence collected by the police, has been made-out. At the time of framing the charges, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and the close and critical scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. At the time of framing the charges, the Court is only required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclose the existence. Even strong suspicion at this stage is suffice to frame the charge against the accused. From the materials available on record, I am the opinion that prima facie the materials for framing the charges exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected that this Court, while exercising its powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should proceed to discuss all such evidence available on record to see whether evidence constitutes the offence, because if that will be done then it may prejudice the case of the petitioner himself and that will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. By evaluating the evidence on record, I am simply to satisfy myself whether prima facie there is some material existing on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioner. I am of the view that there are sufficient materials on record on the basis of which the charges Under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. can be framed against the accused-petitioner. In this view of the matter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner Under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, was also justified in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
6. Now, so far as the second point regarding the sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is concerned, suffice it to say that in the present case, as the act of the petitioner, for which he is being charges-with, cannot be said to be the work done by him in official discharge or purported discharge of the duty and in this view of the matter, no sanction was necessary in this case. A protection to the public servant Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available only when the act complained-of has been done by the public servant in discharge or purported discharge of his official duties, but when the act is neither done in the official discharge nor purported discharge of the official duty, then the protection under this Section is not available to a person.
7. In this view of the matter, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed. As the matter is an old one, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, is directed to complete the trial expeditiously.