STATE (NCT) OF DELHI Vs. RAJ KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . M.A. No.8391/2015 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 2419/2015 1. The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13th November, 2014.

(2.) THE fact of the matter is that the respondent filed an application for registration under Medical Council Act on 14th May, 2001. A letter dated 4th June, 2001 was written by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Council of India, Moscow regarding confirmation of the authenticity of documents submitted by the respondent. On 17th August, 2001 a letter received through fact transmission by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Council of India from the Counsellor (Education) and Director (JNCC), Embassy of India, Moscow regarding information received from the Vice Rector on International Activities, People's Friendship, University of Russia, Moscow that the Diploma in question was never issued to the respondent by the University along with the unsigned letter dated 13th August, 2001 of the Vice -Rector on International Activity of People's Friendship University of Russia, Moscow. On the basis of written complaint of the Deputy Secretary of the Medical Council of India FIR No.248/2002 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC was registered on 4th June, 2002. Charge sheet was filed on 15th April, 2009 in the Court. The respondent was discharged on 23rd January, 2013 for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. Petitioner filed a criminal revision petition on 19th March, 2013 before Sessions Court. The said revision petition was dismissed on 13th November, 2014.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. While discharging the accused, the trial Court has passed the detailed order, relevant portions are reproduced as under : - The first evidence pertains only to the factum of use of Diploma allegedly forged and used for cheating. Unless, the accused could be shown in possession of FORGED document, use of document cannot be called incriminating at all. Record reveals that the verification report was sent by the Embassy of India wherein it has been endorsed that it is informed by the Vice -Rector on International Activities, People's Friendship, University of Russia, Moscow that Diploma under consideration was never issued to accused. This fax is also enclosed with a letter dated 13th August, 2001, which reads that university cannot confirm that these Diplomas have been awarded to above Indian Nationals because numbers given in Diplomas are not accordant to the numbers being given in 1998 -99 and besides this mentioned registered numbers was given to Embassy through letter dated 13th August, 2001 which is not bearing the signatures of any person. There is nothing on record to connect the fact that this information was sent by People's Friendship University of Russia. There is no letter issued or sent by People's Friendship University of Russia to state this fact at any point of time. Embassy of India is not the appropriate and competent authority to state this fact. The information is based upon the document which are neither prepared nor maintained by Embassy of India. It could only transmit the information as sent by the People's Friendship University of Russia. There is nothing on record to support such transmission. No attempt is made to receive the report directly from People's Friendship University of Russia. In the consideration opinion of this Court, the information of Embassy of India is neither the primary evidence nor the secondary evidence as this fax sent by Embassy is not even reflecting that any person from Embassy of India had himself seen the contents of documents on the basis on which it is concluded that copy of diploma submitted by the accused is forged. Record reveals that signature of G. Ravindaran attach Counsellor dated 29th June, 1999 were well present on alleged diploma and specimen signature of G. Ravindaran were called by IO which were duly sent but the signature of G. Ravindaran present on diploma were not sent for comparison with the specimen signatures in order to present the allegations of forgery of M.D. Degree. Therefore, there is no doubt that the for itself does not constitute any evidence at all to impute forgery of the Diploma.