SANDEEP VATS Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order on charge passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 12.07.2005. It is also directed against the formal charge framed against the present petitioner on the same day.

(2.) Mr. Mathur, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that no charge could be framed against the present petitioner under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 467/468/420/419/511 IPC. He submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner as borne out in the impugned order is that:-

(3.) Mr. Mathur, submitted that the main accused Santosh Kumar pleaded guilty and he has already been convicted. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the said Santosh Kumar gave a floppy to the present petitioner which contained two files of pay slips, one of a person by the name of Satish Kumar in the Northern Railways and another of a person by the name of Vinod Kumar, working in Delhi Transport Corporation. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, at the request of Santosh Kumar, printed the pay slip of Northern Railways pertaining to Satish Kumar and handed over the printed copy of the same to Santosh Kumar. It is, however, the case for the prosecution that normal charges were paid by Santosh Kumar to the petitioner for printing the said document. It is further alleged that Santosh Kumar requested the petitioner to transfer these files on to the hard disk of his computer because he may require this printout on a later date. On this, it is further alleged, the petitioner transferee! the said files on to the hard disk of his computer. The further case for the prosecution is that this transfer was done because the petitioner was tempted to do sex on account of the fact that Santosh Kumar was his customer. It is further the case for the prosecution that on a subsequent date, the printout of the pay slip pertaining to Delhi Transport Corporation was also taken out and handed over to Santosh Kumar. This is the entire role that has been ascribed to the present petitioner. Of course, the larger allegation against the other co-accused is that these pay slips were used for providing fake sureties for the purposes of obtaining bail for persons who were in custody.