The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused could not have been prosecuted without prior sanction, and the basic ingredients of the alleged offence were not established.

JUDGMENT

G. A. Sanap, J. - In this application, made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), challenge is to the judgment dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 402/2012, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur.

2. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur vide order dated 18.05.2012 had rejected the applications (Exhs.35, 40 and 38) made by accused nos.1 to 3 for dismissal of the complaint and for their discharge in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1208/2007.

3. The relevant facts of the case are as under :

The parties in this judgment would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The applicant is accused no.1 and non-applicant no.1 is the complainant. The complainant has stated that as per the contract agreement dated 23.12.2002, railway contract for executing the painting of railway still girder bridges was awarded to him. The dispute arose between the complainant and the accused in the matter of execution of the work. In terms of the arbitration clause, the dispute was referred for arbitration.

4. It is the case of the complainant that in the arbitration proceeding, he came to know that the accused persons have fabricated the false evidence to substantiate their claim. It is the case of the complainant that in the arbitration proceeding on the application of the complainant, the Arbitral Tribunal had directed the accused to produce the original record for inspection and examination. The record was produced. On examination of the record, the complainant, found that the document at annexure-13, a letter No. E/2/WAB/Br-Painting/SHK dated 24.03.2003, issued by Sr.DEN(C)/SE Railway/NGP was allegedly sent to M/s S. H. Kulkarni at his address. It was found that at the bottom of the said letter, a postal receipt No. 3428 dated 24.03.2003, issued by the Department of Posts was affixed to prove that the said letter was dispatched by Registered Post and served to the complainant. This letter was not received by the complainant and therefore, he demanded production of the evidence.

5. It is stated that Shri Sanjeev Kumar, the present Sr.DEN (C) representing the DRM Engineering SECR, Nagpur produced the original documents. The documents were examined by the complainant and three members of the Arbitral Tribunal. The examination of the documents revealed that the postal receipt of registered article issued by the Department of Posts for another document/article bearing No.E/WAB/45/BG dated 24.03.2003 was used and affixed on the letter under question to prove the dispatch of the said document to the complainant. It is stated that the railway document at annexure-13 was not at all served to the complainant under the registered post receipt No. 3428 dated 24.03.2003. On examination of the dispatch register, the Arbitral Tribunal found that there was no entry in the register of the dispatch of document dated 24.03.2003 i.e. annexure-13. It is, therefore, contended that the accused have fabricated this evidence by affixing registered post receipt of another document at the bottom of the letter annexure-13 to prove that the same was dispatched and served to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that this document was fabricated with an intention to persuade the Arbitral Tribunal to entertain an erroneous opinion on the issue of service of notice. It is the case of the complainant that the accused have, therefore, committed the offences punishable under Sections 193 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned Magistrate, on filing of the complaint, recorded the verification statement of the complainant. Learned Magistrate on the basis of the facts stated in the complaint and the verification statement, took cognizance of the offences and issued proces