Delhi District Court
State vs Bhagwan Dass on 21 August, 2007
.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DELHI
FIR NO: 246/93
U/S: 468/471 IPC
P.S: Civil Lines
State V/s Bhagwan Dass
JUDGMENT
SI No. of the case : 61H/95
Date of commission of offence : between 7.7.81 to 5.12.83
Name of the complainant : Sh. B.S. Dahiya
Name, parentage and address
of the accused : Bhagwan Dass S/o late Sh.
Sadhu Ram R/o 2/42 LIG Flats
Paschim Vihar, Ashirwad
Apartments, near Piragarhi
Chowk, Delhi.
IInd Address : Baroda Wali
Garhi, PS Gohana, Tehsil
Gohana, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
Offence complained off : U/s 468/471 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Cont....
.
- 2 -
Date of order : 21.8.2007
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. Briefly stated the allegations against the accused are that the accused Bhagwan Dass submitted fake Experience Certificate regarding teaching issued from Govt. High School, Mehmoodpur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana and Govt. High School, Bajana Khurd, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. It is further alleged that the accused applied for P.G.T.(Physics) in Dec. 1989 while he was working as T.G.T. in a Govt. Boys. Sr. School, Nangal Thakran, Delhi. On the basis of the said fake Experience Certificate, the accused was selected and nominated to the District North of Education Department for the post of TGT vide letter F.2(1)(ii)/DR/E.11/89290/4607- 59 DL-28290.
2. On the complaint of one teacher Hawa singh, TGT, the investigation was started regarding the authenticity of the alleged documents filed by the accused alongwith his Bio-data. The matter was then, referred to DCP (Crime & Railways) on 15.10.90 vide letter no. F.7(2)72/90-Vig./37740 Cont....
.
- 3 -
to verify the documents filed by the accused to ascertain the veracity of the Experience Certificate, the Head Master of govt. High School, Bajana Khurd was approached, who informed that the accused was not working as a Science Teacher in the School as mentioned in his Experience Certificate and the documents filed by the accused are bogus and fraud and that the signatures of Head of the Institution are not original.
3. Secondly, the communication was received from the S.D.E.O., Gohana, Sonepat stating that signatures are forged and that he had already retired at the relevant time mentioned in Experience Certificate of the accused. On the abovesaid communication from the Head Master of the School and the S.D.E.O., a case was registered vide FIR No. 246/93 PS Civil Lines U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
4. IO arrested the accused and completed the investigation and thereafter, filed the challan. After supplying the copies, a formal charge was framed against the accused whereby, he was charged for having committed offence punishable U/s 468/471 IPC.
5. Prosecution in support of its case, examined nine witnesses.
Cont....
.
- 4 -
PW1 Sh. Umed Singh is the Sub Divisonal Education Officer, who is a formal witness.
PW2 Dharam Pal is the Head Master of Govt. High School, Distt. Sonepat is also a formal witness who deposed that he had not issued the experience certificate produced by the prosecution which is Mark X to the accused.
PW3 Sh. Raj Singh Sindhu is a retired Sub Divisional Education Officer, Village Bajana Khurd, who has deposed that he had not countersigned against the certificate mark X. PW4 Sh.J.L. Mittal is the Head Clerk, Vigilance Branch(Admn.). PW5 Smt. Usha Sharma is a formal witness, who appointed the accused for the post of P.G.T.(Physics).
PW6 Sh. R. Narayan is the witness, who had given the complaint to the Dy. Commissioner of Police(Crime & Railways). PW7 Sh. R.K. Yadav is the Retired Vice Principal who had issued the Experience Certificate to the accused. PW8 is Sh. Shakti Sinha is also a formal witness, who was posted Cont....
.
- 5 -
as Director of Education, Delhi, at the relevant time. PW9 Sh. R.K. Singh is the IO of the case, who stated that he received this case file for further investigation through MHC(R) and also stated that he seized the relevant papers of the case.
6. The accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and at the instance of another teacher namely Hawa Singh, a complaint against him was filed by PW1 Sh. R. Narayan.
7. In his defence, the accused has proved his case and examined three witnesses.
DW1 Sh. Sant Ram is the Retired Principal, who was the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry held against the accused and who proved the enquiry report dated 5.1.95 Ex.DW1/A. DW2 Dr. Prem Prakash exonerated the accused from the charges levelled against him on the basis of enquiry report of DW1 Sh. Sant Ram vide order dated 23.1.96 which is Ex.DW2/A. DW3 Sh. S.N. Chatopadhyaya was the Dy. Director of Education, Cont....
.
- 6 -
Distt. North, who revoked the suspension order of the accused vide order dated 27.3.95 which is Ex.DW3/A.
7. The case of the accused is that he had filed 8 documents in his Bio-data and had enclosed experience certificate countersigned by Head Master, Bajana Khurd, Sh. Paul Chandand by the Vice Principal Sh. R.K. Yadav of Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Nangal Thakrana. The Bio-data is Ex.PW7/A and the experience certicate is Mark A.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
9. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in the bio-data submitted by the accused, he had mentioned that he had total teaching experience of 1 year and 8 months and the same has been certified by Principal, Bajana Khurd, Mr. Paul Chand. In the experience certificate also, the total experience shown is one year and months. The defence taken by the accused is that the experience certificate which has not been mentioned in the bio- data was never attached by him. It is quite clear that the accused could not have submitted two informations i.e. one in the bio-data and experience Cont....
.
- 7 -
certificates showing his teaching experience as one year & 8 months and another one in the forged certificate showing his work experience of more than five years and therefore, story of prosecution cannot be believed.
10. PW4 Sh. J.L. Mittal stated in his examination in chief that he had handed over to the police on 1.6.94 the original application form of the accused alongwith other original documents in the file of the accused. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he had handed over the documents to the police which were already in the file and he is not aware as to which of the documents were there in the file and that he has no personal knowledge of the case. PW4 has further stated that he had made further efforts to obtain original Experience Certificate but, was informed by the Department that they are required to be produced by the individual at the time of interview.
11. In his cross-examination, he was asked if, he was aware about the departmental enquiry held against the accused and the result of the departmental enquiry. He was further asked if, he interrogated the Enquiry Officer on which, he showed his unawareness. He was further asked as to where was the original complaint to which, he stated that the same was never Cont....
.
- 8 -
handed over to him either by the previous IO or by the complainant. He was further asked if he interrogated Hawa Singh, at whose instance, the enquiry against the accused was held, to which, he stated that he did not.
12. PW6 had given the complaint to the Dy. Commissioner of Police(Crime & Railways) against the accused. He had filed the certificate of respective officer/Schools from where, the certificates were obtained for verification alongwith the complaint. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember as to the examination date and period when he filed the complaint against the accused and the number of fake certificates \, he had filed with the complaint. On being specifically asked as to whether the document mark A was produced before him to which, he replied that he did not remember. He further stated that he does not remember whether he enclosed certificate mark A with the complaint alongwith other documents as he does not remember the details of the complaint which is Ex.PW6/A. He also stated that he does not have any personal knowledge of the present case.
13. PW7 has stated that he had forwarded the Bio-data of the accused for the interview of the PGT(Physics) alongwith certificates stated in form Cont....
.
- 9 -
Ex.PW7/A at Sl. No. 1 to 8. he had also issued experience certificates to the accused being in job as a teacher.
14. PW8 has stated that he came to know about the present case by his Predecessor, who had lodged a complaint with the police against the accused. He had no personal knowledge about the case.
15. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused had filed forged experience certificate mark X alongwith his Bio-data whereas as per the accused, he had filed the experience certificate Mark A with his Bio-data. The accused has stated that he had only filed the eight documents as stated in his Bio-data and no other documents besides the one mentioned in the Bio-data whereas, the prosecution case is that for entry 8 in the Bio-data, accused has enclosed the experience certificate Mark X which is bogus and forged. In support of its case, prosecution had examined all the nine witnesses, who were formal in nature and none had the personal knowledge about the case and moreover, the prosecution had deliberately not mentioned the result of the departmental enquiry which was conducted against the accused whereby he was exonerated and was reappointed on his post as Cont....
.
- 10 -
P.G.T. and is still working in the same department at the same post. All the more, the prosecution did not send the alleged forged documents to the CFSL opinion which clearly goes against prosecution.
16. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses, who have no personal knowledge regarding the fact that accused had submitted the forged documents for obtaining promotion. The prosecution also did not obtain CFSL opinion and therefore, even this cannot be proved that accused had manufactured this document.
17. Accused on the other hand, examined three witnesses, who have proved that the accused was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and was reinstated to his post. The prosecution had also filed the verification from the concerned officers of the Schools from which, he had received the experience certificates as mentioned in his Bio-data. The experience certificate mark A was signed by S.D.E.O, who had proved his signatures at Mark Y. The prosecution has relied upon experience certificate mark X which shows the experience of accused for about 2½ years at Bajana Khurd whereas the accused has stated in his Bio-data about the said experience at Cont....
.
- 11 -
Bajana Khurd as one year and 8 months for which, he had received the verification from the concerned Department, when the accused was mentioning his experience at Govt. High School, Bajana Khurd as one year and 8 months in his Bio-data, there was no occasion for him to have filed the experience certificate of the same School for 2½ years.
17. The prosecution has further not proved that the experience certificate Mark A of the accused was insufficient to have got him selected to the post of P.G.T. In case, as per the accused the experience certificate filed by him Mark A was sufficient in itself to have got him selected to the post of P.G.T. What was the need for him to have filed a fake certificate alongwith his Bio-data when he was in possession of an original experience certificate.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt falls in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused is acquitted of the offence charged U/s 468/471 IPC. B/B of the accused stands cancelled. S/B stands discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open court)
Dated: 22.8.07 (SIDHARTH SHARMA)
Metropolitan Magistrate:Delhi
Cont....