JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 10.05.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa in Seppa P.S. Case No. 34/12, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 37/12, registered under Section 420/468 IPC, is put to challenge in this revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, by the petitioner- Shri Singta Techi Tara.

2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, has summoned the petitioner-Singta Techi Tara, as an accused to stand trial along with rest of the accused under Section 420/468 of the IPC.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly state as under:

“On 23.04.2012, the then Deputy Commissioner, Seppa, East Kameng District, filed one FIR with the Officer In-Charge, Seppa, to the effect that one Shri Dilip Tachang has deposited 3(three) numbers of cheque in State Bank of India (SBI), Seppa, by forging his nature and also the signature of Shri T.G. Khrime. Upon the said FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Seppa P.S. registered a case being Seppa P.S. Case No. 34/12, under Section 420/468 IPC and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-sheet against Shri Dilip Tachang to stand trial in the Court under Section 420/468 IPC. Shri Dilip Tachang and Shri Tacho Tachang, accordingly, appeared before the Court of Learned CJM, Seppa and the learned CJM, Seppa has framed charge against both the accused under Section 420/468 IPC and on being read and explained over, both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the learned Court below, has examined the prosecution witnesses and after closing the prosecution evidence the learned Court below, has examined the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Shri Tacho Tachang, has stated that because of some liabilities, Shri Singta Techi Tara, has to repay a loan and in the said loan Tacho Tachang was the guarantor. Thereafter, on the prayer being made by the learned Addl. P.P. and also considering the evidence of PW-7 and the statement of accused Shri Tacho Tachang, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned Court below has summoned Shri Singta Techi Tara, as an accused. Though, the learned Court below has not specifically stated about the Sections, under which he has exercised jurisdiction, yet, it appears that the learned Court below has exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2021, the petitioner, approached this court by preferring the present petition on the ground that:

(1) The evidences, upon which the learned Court below had relied upon to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not sufficient.

(2) The statement of an accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence and beside there is no materials to corroborate the same.

(3) And assuming that the petitioner has some liabilities to repay a loan yet, the same has nothing to do with forging of signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa, in cheque leaves; Therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.

5. Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tadoh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

6. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has committed manifest error in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mr. B. Picha, further submits that the evidence upon which the learned Court below has relied upon to invoke its jurisdiction is totally insufficient and that the statement of co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot read as evidence and there is no materials on record to corroborate the same. Mr. Picha, therefore, contended to set aside the impugned order.

7. On the other h