HARISH BABU Vs. CBI S P E DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Hajela Learned Counsel for C.B.I.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. It is contended that Mahendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Ashok Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Yadav secured a job in the postal department as postal assistant on the basis of the forged and fictitious educational certificates of High School, Intermediate and graduation. In pursuance of said criminal conspiracy co-accused Harpal Singh got arranged forged and fictitious educational certificates after taking a sum of Rs. 30-35 thousand from the above mentioned co-accused persons for the purpose of enabling them to secure a job and coaccused Badri Prasad and Dealing Clerk and Postal Assistant facilitated to above suspects in the requirement process by providing them confidential details and helping suspects to change the educational certificates, verification report. In this process the aforesaid persons got job of postal assistant in the year of 1992-93 on the basis of the forged and fictitious educational certificate using the same to be genuine.

(3.) It is further contended that according to the F.I.R. version the main allegation is against the co-accused Harpal Singh and Badri Prasad. There is no allegation against the applicant, but during investigation the name of the applicant came into light as an accused in the statement of Sri Bahadur Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to that statement the applicant was known to him since 1991 because the applicant had constructed his house in front of the house of that witness, He was known to co-accused Harpal Singh also who used to come at the house of the applicant since 1992-93. According to his statement he came to know that the 2 or 3 boys used to come there alongwith coaccused Harpal Singh. They were doing the work of enabling the service and the applicant and Harpal Singh had taken the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the relative of witness Bahadur Singh, but they could not provide the service. Therefore, the said amount was returned by them. According to his statement also there is no other allegations against the applicant in respect of making forgery in the documents etc. and the statement of Bahadur Singh is based on hearsay evidence. Thereafter, the statement of one Shishu Pal Singh Yadav was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he had heard that applicant was providing the service. Therefore, he had introduced to Mahendra Singh with him. He had demanded Rs. 30,000/- from Mahendra Singh, but he has refused to give that amount. Subsequently, he came to know that police verification of Mahendra Singh was done and there is no allegations against the applicant in the statement of witness Shishu Pal Yadav. According to these statements there is no allegation of committing the forgery against the applicant. The next evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation is the alleged recovery of some loose papers, photographs and 57 rubber stamps in the name of heads of various institutions, Administrative Authorities etc. from the house of the applicant, but there is no evidence to show that he has forged any document or any such document was used in anyway for any purpose. The alleged recovery is not reliable evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. According to charge-sheet submitted by the I.O., the main role of hatching conspiracy to commit the alleged offence is against the applicant and his case is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Badri Prasad and Har Pal Singh. It is further contended that the applicant is not serving anywhere. He was not having any status to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that in the present case certain documents were sent to Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata, but that report was not against the applicant.