Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order dated 21.10.2009 and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2006, Sub-Inspector, Karan Singh, lodged a report wherein he claimed that while he was investigating the case against Jahid Ali @ Parvez, who allegedly is a Pakistani spy, he realized that Parvez had submitted an application for issuance of a ration card. In the said application, he stated his address as Gabbo Ka Chowk, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. The said application for the ration card was attested by the petitioner, in his capacity as a ward member of ward No.39. The said form was subsequently notarized by Vijay Singh, a Notary Public. On the basis of the said application, Parvez was issued a ration card. According to the complainant Parvez and the petitioner had prepared false documents for the purpose of cheating.

3. On the basis of the said report, a FIR, FIR No.26/2006 was registered at Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was also filed for the said offences. However, vide order dated 21.10.2009, the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120B IPC; the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 474 IPC. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide judgment dated 15.11.2011, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition, and upheld the order dated 21.10.2009. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr. Vineet Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, while Section 463 IPC defines the offence of forgery, Section 464 IPC defines “making of false documents”. According to Section 464 IPC, a false document has to be made with dishonest and fraudulent intention. The person has to make, sign, seal or execute a document, or part of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document is by an authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. Moreover, in case, such document is either altered after the document has been made, executed and affixed then a false document is said to be made. In the present case, an application for issuance of a ration card was submitted by Parvez. The said application contained certain information entered by Parvez. It is only at the bottom of the application that the petitioner has signed his name in the capacity of a ward member, whereby he has attested the contents on the basis of an inquiry; he has found that the contents are true. However, neither the signature of Parvez, nor the signature of the petitioner, have been forged. Although, the contents of the application may be incorrect, but even then the case would not fall within the definition of “making false documents” as defined under Section 464 IPC. Since the act of attesting the application form does not fall within the definition contained in Section 464 IPC, obviously, the ingredients of offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are not made out even on a prima facie basis. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, both the courts-below have committed an illegality in framing the charges for offences under Sections 468, 471 IPC. As far as the offence under Section 120B IPC is concerned, the charge for offence under Section 120B IPC is simplici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document