SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal revision. has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the order dated 24.9.2010, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum -Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in RC 11 A/2006(D), by which time petition filed on behalf of the. petitioner for cross -examination of the Investigating Officer was rejected and the evidence of the prosecution was closed.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that an F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code by the C.B.1. on the allegation that he dishonestly and fraudulently got his appointment letter to the post of Postal Assistant in the Postal Department, Ranchi, Circle Ranchi by producing fake and bogus certificate of Intermediate (Science) of the year 1995 showing the marks obtained as 789 out of full marks of 900 from the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. In the verification, it could be gathered that there was no candidate having the name of Santosh Kumar, son of Shri Rampur Ram bearing Enlistment No. BO -03748 vide Roll Code No. 1514/10230 in the record of Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna appearing from Jawahar Lal Nehru College, Dehri -on -Sone (Bihar) in the year 1998.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel Mr. V. Shivnath appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that for last preceding four dates, no witness was being produced on behalf of the prosecution and all of a sudden, attendance of Investigating Officer was filed on 23.9.2010 and by that time, the senior counsel for the petitioner Shri A.C. Kumar was appointed as Special Prosecutor of C.B.I. and therefore, he transferred the brief to his junior, who could not be able to arrange another lawyer and it was beyond the control of the petitioner but the learned court without taking into consideration of this aspect rejected the time petition, which was tiled on behalf of the petitioner on 24.9.2010 on presumption that the petitioner by taking adjournment wanted to influence the course of justice without any reason for such presumption and assumption. Petitioner was regularly in attendance before the Special Magistrate but this aspect was also ignored as he has been deprived of the valuable right to cross -examine an important witness like Investigating Officer.