IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN QADRI Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 25/8/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby charges for offences under Sec. 420, 467 and 471 RPC have been framed against him.

(2.) It appears that after investigation of FIR No.22/2016 registered with Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, a charge sheet for offences under Sec. 420, 467 and 471 RPC came to be filed by the respondents before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court). It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 5/3/2016, a written complaint was lodged by Manager, JKSFC, Srinagar, before the respondent Police Station, alleging therein that the Corporation has received a complaint that the petitioner, who was working as a Manager in JKSFC Camp office Durga Nag, Srinagar, has managed his appointment on the basis of fake date of birth certificate. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered and the investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case, it was found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 1/2/1955 but the same had been forged by the petitioner to make it as 1st of February ,1957 so as to remain in service for extra two years. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency, passed a detailed order dtd. 25/8/2018 and came to the conclusion that prima facie offences under Sec. 420, 467 and 471 RPC are made out against the petitioner and, accordingly, the charges were framed against him.

(3.) The petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without appreciating the material on record. It is contended that the petitioner has never tampered with or fabricated the service record and he has not produced fake date of birth certificate before his employer. According to the petitioner, whatever is his actual date of birth, the same was projected by him before his employer and if at all any tampering has been done in his service record which remains in the custody of his employer, he cannot be held responsible for the same. It has been contended that neither the service book nor the photocopy of the date of birth certificate alleged to have been produced by the petitioner, have been sent to the FSL for ascertaining the true facts. According to the petitioner he was given extension in service and because of this he remained in service for two years beyond his age of superannuation and not because of producing fake date of birth certificate. It is also contended that the Managing Director of the Corporation was inimical to the petitioner and because of his malafides towards him, the instant prosecution has been launched.