IMPORTANT POINT
Charges must be substantiated by evidence; if found groundless, the accused is entitled to discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to order dated 18.11.2021, passed in Criminal Case No.709 of 2020, State vs. Jayendri Rana and others, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi (“the case”), by which, an application for discharge filed by the petitioner and the co-accused has been dismissed and the order dated 29.06.2022, passed in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2021, Jayendri Rana vs. State, by the court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi (“the revision”), by which the order dated 18.11.2021, passed in the case has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows; The case is based on an FIR No.69 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi, according to which, the petitioner was Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Uttarkashi (“the Nagar Palika”), but she committed forgery. The rent receipts were issued without construction of the shop in collusion with the vendors and she, in fact, attempted to sell the Government land. The FIR is a little more detail.

4. The State was required to file counter affidavit, which the State has not filed. In fact, the informant was issued a notice. He also did not file any objection. On 27.12.2023, the Court observed as follows:-

“In fact, on 20.07.2022, for the first time, State was given time to file counter affidavit. It is more than 17 months now. The Court proceeded to hear the matter.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when proceeded to argue, referred to various resolutions of the Nagar Palika. The Court directed the petitioner to produce the documents at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered the extracts of Resolution of the Nagar Palika, Uttarkashi dated 18.10.2014, 08.01.2015, 12.05.2015, 08.12.2015, 22.05.2017, 18.08.2017, as also entire case diary of the case. They are taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence. He would raise the following points in his submissions:-

(i) In order to streamline the working of the vegetable vendors certain pre-fabricated shops were to be constructed at the place where vegetable vendors were already working. For that purpose, on 18.10.2014 a resolution was passed by the Nagar Palika fixing the premium for such construction at Rs. 4 Lakhs, which was subsequently reduced by resolution dated 12.05.2015 of the Board Meeting.

(ii) The Nagar Palika has in its meeting held on 08.12.2015 reduced the premium amount from Rs.4 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs, to be paid in installments.

(iii) The Nagar Palika further in its meeting held on 22.05.2017, approved the construction of the pre-fabricated shops with a rent of Rs. 1,500/-.

(iv) In its meeting held on 18.08.2017 the Nagar Palika Parishad further resolved that the money recovered from the vegetable vendors will be paid as salary to the contract workers.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that construction of pre-fabricated structure was approved in the Board Meeting of the Nagar Palika by validly passed resolutions, as indicated hereinabove. He would submit that the premium and the rate of rent as well as the measurement of the shops were approved in the Board Meetings of the Nagar Palika on various dates. Pursuant to those resolutions, premium and rent were deposited and it was paid as salary to the contract workers. Learned counsel would submit that it does not make out any case at all. The charges against the petitioner are groundless.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that whatever the petitioner has done, she has done pursuant to the resolutions of the Nagar Palika.

9. The petitioner did file discharge application. The provisions of framing of charge and discharge are contained under Sections 239 & 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). Section 239 and 240 of the Code read as follows:-

“239. When a