At the stage of framing charges, the court's inquiry is limited to evaluating if the facts emerging from the materials constitute the alleged offence, and the accused has no right to produce material. Statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act have limited admissibility.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - Since, both the petitions arise from the same order and the relief sought are identical, therefore, these petitions are being heard and decided analogously by this common order.

2. These revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2018 in S.T. No. 40/2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, Distt. Betul, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioners.

3. According to the case, a written complaint was made by one Chayendra Kumar Budekar, Project Officer, Child Welfare Service, Amla, District Betul, to the police station-Amla alleging that the applications were invited for the post of Aanganwadi Worker, in pursuance to which the interested candidates have filed their candidature-ship enclosing the relevant documents with their applications. It is further stated that on the basis of merits of applicants therein, the merit list was published but certain objections were filed in respect of filing forged mark-sheets by the candidates, hence, the same was enquired about and mark-sheets of four persons, namely, Priyanka, Meera Bai, Anjani and Tulsi Bai were found forged. Thereafter, the police has registered the FIR and during investigation, recorded the memorandum of co-accused Anjani Pawar, wherein she stated that she had taken forged mark-sheet from the petitioner-Jagesh, hence, the petitioner has been made as an accused in the case. Thereafter, in his memorandum, petitioner-Jagesh informed the police that he gave rupees 60,000/- to petitioner-Dashrath for preparing forge mark-sheet of Anjani Pawar. After completing the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet before the concerning Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and by passing the impugned order, the learned ASJ has framed the charges which are under challenge in these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below erred in framing the charges against the petitioners whereas no case is made out against them even after accepting the whole prosecution case as it is. He further submits that the Court below failed to see that there are four persons who have produced the forged mark-sheets and out of them, only one namely Anjani has stated against the petitioner-Jagesh. Her statement is inadmissible in evidence in the eye of law and petitioner cannot be convicted on that basis. Petitioner-Dashrath has also been impleaded in the case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused/petitioner-Jagesh. There is no other evidence in the case except the memorandum of co-accused persons and no ingredient of conspiracy is found in the case. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing these revision petitions. In support of his contention, he has relied the order of this High Court passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25653/2017 (Kamal Singh and others Vs. State of MP) and M.Cr.C. No. 24620/2017 (Jankilal Vs. State of MP).

5. On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the petitions submitting that there is sufficient material available on record for framing the charges of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. He submits that defence of petitioners may not be considered at this stage and these revision petitions may not be allowed at this initial stage of trial, the petitioners may raise all the grounds before the trial Court at appropriate stage of trial. With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of these petitions. In support of his contention he has relied the order in the High Court of MP passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25653/2017 (Kamal Singh and others Vs. State of MP), M.Cr.C. No. 24620/2017 (Jankilal Vs. State of MP) and M.Cr.C. No. 24381/2017 (Raju @ Rajmal Vs. State of MP).

6. Heard both the parties and perused the case-diary.

7. Before embarking on the facts of the