Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210839

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4010 of 2023

Revisionist :- Govind Singh Arya

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Bheem Singh,Gyanendra Prasad

Mahant

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for

the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the

order dated 06.07.2023, passed by the Additional District

Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act

(V.B.U.P.S.E.B.), Meerut in Special Criminal Case No.33 of 2002

(State vs. Govind Singh Arya), arising out of Case Crime No.18 of

1993, under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 193 IPC and Section

13(1), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Sirsaganj,

District Firozabad, whereby, the application filed by revisionist for

summoning of answer sheet/ copies of the year 1973 and 1974 of

Shastri Pariksha in defence evidence has been rejected.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that

the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be

set aside. In view of allegations levelled against revisionist, for

proper adjudication of case, the summoning of the said record is

necessary. By said record, it may be clarified that whether

revisionist has appeared in Shastri Pariksha in the year 1973 and

1974 or not. The first information report of this case was lodged

making false and baseless allegations and charge-sheet was

submitted without proper investigation. The revisionist has joined

on the post of Principal in Acharya Gurukul Mahavidyalaya,

Sirsaganj in the year 1981 and retired on 30.06.2016. The

allegation that the revisionist got the said job by submitting forged

and fake marks-sheet is wholly false. By summoning of the

original answer sheets/ copies of the Shastri examination of the

year 1973 and 1974, the revisionist would be able to show that he

has appeared in the said examination. Referring to these facts, it

was submitted that the impugned order is facts and law and thus,

liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist has

placed reliance upon the case of Manik Pandey vs. State (Criminal

Revision No. 3965 of 2023), decided on 05.10.2023 passed by this

Court.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that the

trial court has noted that there is no such allegation against

revisionist that he has made any tampering in the answer sheets or

examination copies but the case of prosecution case is that he has

prepared false and forged mark-sheets and got the alleged job on

the basis of the forged and fake documents. During investigation,

the Investigating Officer has collected the relevant record

pertaining to the examination undertaken by the revisionist and

thus, there is absolutely no basis to summon the examination

copies of the year 1973 and 1974 and that such a record can hardly

be available now after lapse of about 50 years.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. In case of Manik Pandey vs. State (supra) relied by learned

counsel for the revisionist, this court in para No. 21 and 22 has

held as under:

"21. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and it is the duty of the court to

ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the

interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the

grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured

as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a

person's right to fair trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a

valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is

essential that the rules of procedure that have been designed