JITENDER SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the several accused persons who stand summoned in the criminal case (CC No.12482/2018) registered on the basis of report ("charge sheet") under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.605/2015 to Police Station Hauz Khas. The FIR was registered on the compliant of Honorary Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi alleging offences punishable under sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed, certain individuals, statedly including the petitioner herein, having got themselves enrolled as Advocates with the Bar Council of Delhi on the basis of forged and fabricated educational testimonials.

(2.) The investigation carried out is stated to have brought out material confirming, inter alia, that the mark-sheets purportedly of the degree course of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) of Awadh University besides provisional certificate No.3687 and mark-sheets of the degree course of Law (LL.B.) of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University were submitted by the petitioner with his application for enrolment, it leading to enrolment vide No.D-134/2011, on such basis but the same were found to be forged and fabricated. It is pointed out by the petitioner that in the charge sheet reference was made to a disclosure by him about the role of one Madan Singh Chauhan as the person from whom the said forged documents were procured against payment of money. It is also, however, conceded that no discovery of any further evidence on the basis of such disclosure of the petitioner could be found against the said Madan Singh Chauhan and, consequently he has not been sent up for prosecution.

(3.) The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) before whom the criminal case came up, after the presence of the accused persons had been secured, considered the question of charge. By a very detailed order dated 21st July, 2018, some of the persons sent up for prosecution were discharged, the ACMM finding no ground to proceed against them, charge, however, having been framed against some others, including the petitioner. It is noted that charges were framed pursuant to the said order dated 21.07.2018 by the ACMM on the same date, the charge of criminal conspiracy, in which regard the present petition has been filed, being the subject matter of third head, it reading thus:-