ORDER

The present revision is filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by I ASJ, Dewas in S.T.No. 90/2022 whereby the Court has framed charges under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

2. As per prosecution story, main accused Abdul Hanif had taken one policy from the insurance company to the tune of Rs.1 Crore and he had obtained the policy through online mode and lateron his wife had submitted the death certificate of Abdul Hanif which is alleged to be issued by the present applicant and submitted the claim form for obtaining the amount from the insurance company. Upon investigation by the investigator of the Insurance company, it was found that said person for whom the claim form was submitted, it is not dead and main accused in conspiracy with other co-accused person tried to defraud the insurance company and upon investigation Sunil Makhija, Branch Managar, SBI, Life Insurance company has filed the complaint before the police and the FIR was registered against all the accused persons including present applicant and subsequently chargesheet has been filed.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against the applicant is that he had issued alleged forged death certificate in order to claim insurance amount and claimed insurance of Rs.1 Crore from the Insurance company along with other co-accused persons. It is alleged that applicant has filed copy of handwriting expert report of private expert as Annx.A/2 to prove that it is not his handwriting. He has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value.

4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is sufficient material to prove that death certificate was issued by the applicant in the letter head and applicant has conspired along with other co-accused persons and obtained loan of Rs.1 Crore on the basis of forged death certificate.

5. The submissions made in the revision petition cannot be appreciated at this stage whether the report of private handwriting expert submitted by the applicant has to be relied upon or not and evidentiary value of the memorandum under section 27 of the Indian Eviidence Act. This is a matter of trial. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order of framing of charge.

The Revision is accordingly dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK JUDGE MK