The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition of Alka Rai, accused in the case of registration of an ambulance with fake documents for Mukhtar Ansari. In the petition, she challenged the trial court’s order framing the charges.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing an application filed by Alka Rai.
By means of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed validity of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, whereby her application for discharge has been rejected.
The applicant has also challenged the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the aforesaid Court framing charges against her under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
On 02.04.2021, a First Information Report bearing Case was lodged by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer in Police Station Kotwali Barabanki Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC alleging that an ambulance was registered with the Transport Department Barabanki on 21.12.2013, in the name of the applicant, showing her address to be 56, Rafi Nagar, Barabanki, claiming that the ambulance will be used for transporting the patients of Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, National Highway 24, GT Mau.
The applicant had produced a photocopy of her voter identity card showing the aforesaid address, which turned out to be false and forged as it was found that there was no house in Rafi Nagar.
The F.I.R alleges that the registration of the ambulance was done on the basis of forged documents.
After investigation, a charge-sheet dated 04.07./2021 has been submitted against seven accused persons, including the applicant, for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B, 177 and 506 I.P.C and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. However, the applicant has challenged the order framing charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C only.
The applicant has approached the Court challenging the order rejecting her application for discharge.
The Court noted that,
In the order dated 28.02.2023, rejecting the discharge application, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki has recorded that it has been stated in the discharge application that the FIR makes a mention of Section 55 (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 whereas the Regional Transport Officer has no authority to lodge a report in case of violation of the aforesaid provision and it contains a provision for cancellation of the registration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the registered owner of the vehicle.
The State has filed a counter affidavit stating that a news item was published in various newspapers, that a co-accused person Mukhtar Ansari had gone to appear before a Court in Punjab in an ambulance registered in District Barabanki. Upon seeing this, the Inspector-incharge of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki, sent a letter dated 01.04.2021 to the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Barabanki, enquiring about the details of registration of the ambulance. The Regional Transport Officer sent a letter to the Sub-divisional Magistrate Nawabganj, Barabanki, informing that the ambulance was registered in the name of the applicant and as proof of her address she had submitted a copy of her voter identity card.
It was found that the voter identity card submitted by the applicant for registration of the Vehicle, was forged. The application for registration was accompanied by a letter issued on a printed letterhead of Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, National Highway 24 G.T, Mau, stating that the ambulance will be used for transport of patients without any fee.
A copy of the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein she stated that she was running Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital along with co accused Doctor Sheshnath Rai, in a premise taken on rent from its owner Pyarey Lal Sindhi. Pyarey Lal Sindhi had sold the house to Umesh Singh in the year 2009. Umesh Singh was said to be very close to Mukhtar Ansari and he started creating pressure for vacating the house. The applicant and co-accused Sheshnath Rai went to meet co accused Mukhtar Ansari, who was lodged in District Jail Ghazipur and Mukhtar Ansari assured that nobody will ask her to vacate the house. She had gone to meet Mukhtar Ansari in jail again on 31.05.2013 along with some other persons and in a meeting held in the jail, she was asked to arrange an Ambulance in the name of her hospital, which would be purchased from the Vidhayak Nidhi. The applicant stated that with the passage of time, she developed affinity with Mukhtar Ansari and she had tied a Rakhee on his wrist.
Thereafter co-accused Mujahid, who was the representative of Mukhtar Ansari, and co-accused Raj Nath Yadav, who used to look after the office of Mukhtar Ansari, asked that an ambulance was to be taken in the name of her hospital for public service. Mukhtar Ansari himself had told it to her when she had got to meet him in jail. She also felt that the purchase of an ambulance would be beneficial for her hospital.
Therefore, she provided photocopies of the registration certificate of Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, income certificate, PAN card of herself and her hospital. She had also provided some blank printed letter-heads of the hospital by putting her signatures and seal on those and some blank cheques from the bank account of the hospital. After sometime, Mujahid and Raj Nath Yadav told her that the ambulance could not be purchased from Vidhayak Nidhi due to some technical problem and they said that the ambulance will be transferred in the applicant’s name. Mujahid and Raj Nath Yadav had got her signatures on some more documents and thereafter the ambulance was purchased and it was retained by Mukhtar Ansari with him and the same was used by him.
On 31.03.2021, the applicant came to know through TV news channels that Mukhtar Ansari had gone to attend a hearing in a Court in Punjab by the ambulance registered in her name. On the same day, co accused Anand Yadav came to her hospital and made her talk to co accused Shahid through his mobile phone and Shahid had told her what statement she would give to the authorities in this regard.
The Court observed that,
In this case, the applicant has not been charged for committing the offence of forgery, rather she has been charged for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 177 and 506 I.P.C and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, which include the charge for entering into a criminal conspiracy for commission of the offences alleged.
However, the applicant has preferred not to challenge the order framing charges under Section 120-B, 177 and 506 I.P.C and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 presumably for the reason that she accepts to be tried for those charges. When the applicant is being tried for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, it is not necessary that the applicant is charged for committing those offences herself. Therefore, I find no force in the aforesaid submission of the Counsel for the applicant.
Thus the law regarding the approach to be adopted by the court while considering an application for discharge of the accused persons under Section 227 and approach while framing charges under Section 228 of the Code, is that while considering an application for discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Code, the Court has to form a definite opinion, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
However, while framing charges, the Court is not required to form a definite opinion that the accused is guilty of committing an offence. The truth of the matter will come out when evidence is led during the trial. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exist, the court would presume that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly and the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution.
“Having considered the facts of the case in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor (Supra) I am of the considered view that upon consideration of the record of the case, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant. The truth of the matter will come out when evidence is led during the trial”, the Court observed while dismissing the application.