Bimal Kishore vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Dharam Veer, J.—For the reasons stated, misc. appln. No. 3559/2010 is allowed. Counter affidavit accompanying with the application on behalf of the CBI is taken on record.

Also hear on merits of the petition.

This petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.5.2010 and entire proceedings of Case No. 7 of 2010 CBI v. Bimal Kishore u/s 420/468/471 IPC, pending before the Special J.M. (CBI) Dehradun and further to set aside the cognizance and summoning order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the court below.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that a case was registered by CBI Dehradun Branch on 8.12.2009 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against the petitioner Bimal Kishore, Senior Manager, Vishnugad Pipalkati Project, THDC, Uttarakhand, on the basis of a reliable source information that he is dishonestly and fraudulently obtained employment in THDC on the basis of a forged certificate of Higher Secondary Examination issued by Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti, Patna which showed his date of birth as 02/01/1959 instead of 02/01/1954. On the basis of false declaration of date of birth and the forged Higher Secondary Examination Certificate, the petitioner Bimal Kishore secured employment in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, Uttarakhand. The matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. On the basis of the said charge sheet, learned Special J.M. (CBI) Dehradun vide order dated 19.5.2010 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. Hence this petition.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the CBI wherein it is stated that during the investigation following facts were established against the applicant/accused:

Investigation has established that the date of birth of petitioner was entered as 2.1.1954 in the school records.

The date of birth of petitioner was amended from 2.1.54 to 2.1.59 by the then Principal of Mahatma Gandhi School on the basis of a fake memorandum No. 1633 dated 6.2.71 said to have been issued by the then Regional Director Education Bhagalpur, Bihar.

This memorandum was submitted by the petitioner to the school itself.

In this memorandum, it was mentioned that the date of birth of petitioner has been amended from 2.1.54 to 2.1.59 in accordance with the provisions of Section 237(2) of Bihar Education Code 1961.

During investigation, this memorandum was found to be a fake one. The office of Regional Deputy Director Education Bhagalpur vide her letter dated 17.2.2010 confirmed that memorandum No. 1633 dated 6.2.71 was not issued from their office. It was also informed that on 12.1.72 (the date mentioned in the covering letter No. 169 vide which the memorandum No. 1633 dated 6.2.71 was purported to have been issued to the petitioner), Sri Ras Bihari pandey was not the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Bhagalpur. On that day, Sri Uma Prasad Singh was working as RDE Bhagalpur.

The original dispatch register for the year 1971 also establishes that memo No. 1633 dated 6.2.71 is a fake order.

There is no Sub-section (2) of Section 237 of Bihar Education Code 1961. Section 237 of the code is regarding ''other conditions of recognition of schools''. This section does not relate to amendment of date of birth as mentioned in the fake memorandum No. 1633 dated 6.2.71.

It has further been stated that the applicant did his Higher Secondary from Mahatama Gandhi Higher Secondary School Bihar in the year 1971 and his dater of birth in the records of the Pariksha Samiti is 2.1.1954. The certificate issued to the applicant Bimal Kishore by Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti was tampered. The fact that this certificate was tampered, was fortified by the report of Central Forensic Laboratory of CBI New Delhi which has confirmed that the original figures ''1954'' were changed to ''1959''. At last, it is stated that the applicant being an educated person, has committed a grave offence of forging his higher secondary certificate and changing his date of birth from 2.1.54 to 2.1.59. The CBI collected cogent material against the applicant during investigation which established the offences against the applicant.

Sri L.K. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and he has been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the charge sheet, the allegations made against the applicant, the counter affidavit filed by the CBI and other relevant material available on record, I find that the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly proceeded to summon the petitioner to face trial.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the parties and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet as well as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of CBI as well as the other relevant records are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety at this stage, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court to face trial u/s 420/468/471 IPC. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed in limine.