Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ramapati Mahto on 27 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU AGGARWAL, ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, CENTRAL DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto
Case No. : CBI/108/2019
RC No : SI I 2009 S0003
U/s : 120-B, r/w 420, 465, 465, 467, 468, 471 &
472 IPC and substantive offences thereof.
Name of Branch : CBI/SC-I/New Delhi
JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : DLCT12-001317-2019
b) The date of commission of the offence : During period between 1991-92
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Govind Awasthi S/o Sh. Anand Shankar Awasthi Sub-Inspector/CBI/SC-I, New Delhi
d) Name, parentage & address of accused : Ramapati Mahto S/o Late Sh. Bhagan Mahto R/o 23-D, DDA Flat, Sector-10, Pocket, Dwarka, New Delhi.
[Permanent Address :-
Village & Post Gayaspur, PS - Siswan, District Siwan, (Bihar)]
e) Offences complained of : 420/471 r/w 465 IPC
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.08.2019
h) Date of institution of case : 16.08.2010
i) Date of final arguments : 20.07.2019
j) Date of Reserving Judgment : 20.07.2019 Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 1 of 39 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
Brief facts of the case
1. The present case has been registered as against accused Ramapati Mahto on the ground that he obtained employment in Income Tax office on the basis of forged ST certificate. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 17.03.2004 passed in CWP/5976/08 directed CBI to investigate the case of public servants who were appointed through fake certificate.
Pursuant to the same, preliminary investigation with respect to the ST certificate dated 28.01.1985 of accused Ramapati Mahto was conducted by complainant Govind Awasthi, Sub-Inspector, CBI. Accused was working with Income Tax Office as Income Tax Officer, New Delhi and he got the employment in ST Category on the basis of Caste Certificate dated 28.01.1985.
3. During verification ST certificate of accused was found to be fake. Complainant Govind Awasthi SI CBI filed a complaint dated 06.06.2009 to Superintendent of Police, CBI. On the basis of the said complaint the present case was registered, u/s 420/465/467/468/471/472 r/w 120B IPC and substantive offences thereof.
4. During investigation, it was found that accused Ramapati Mahto was working as Head Clerk / GR-II, in Govt. Boys Sr. Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 2 of 39 Secondary School No.2, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Directorate of Education, Delhi from March 1989 to 18.05.1992. Accused applied for Inspector of Central Excise, Income Tax Examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission vide his application dated 19.08.1990. In the said application, he declared himself belonging to ST Category and showed himself as working in the Directorate of Education.
5. It is stated that after written examination, accused Ramapati Mahto was called for an interview on 22.07.1991. On 22.07.1991, at the time of interview, an attendance sheet was filled up by accused Ramapati Mahto declared himself belonging to ST category. He submitted photocopies of the ST certificate dated 28.01.1985 purportedly issued by the District Magistrate, District Siwan, Bihar showing his tribe as 'Kharia'. He also submitted the other relevant documents. It is stated that the accused was selected for the post of Inspector Income Tax. It is submitted that he had given his acceptance on 29.01.1992 and in his acceptance dated 29.01.1992, accused was found that he was working as Head Clerk in the Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School, Directorate of Education, New Delhi and his character and antecedents had already been verified by the Department of Education.
6. The antecedents of the accused was verified and file from Deputy Director was received on 23.04.1992 whereby accused declared himself belonging to the ST category in attestation form Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 3 of 39 filled by him on 24.04.1989 when he was working in the Directorate of Education. Accordingly, accused joined the Income Tax Department as Inspector of Income Tax. It is stated that the ST certificate dated 28.01.1985 wherein accused Ramapati has shown himself as 'Kharia tribe' is false and fabricated as same has not been issued from the office of District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. It is further stated that accused does not belong to 'Kharia Tribe' in the State of Bihar. He has been found to be belonging to 'Nonia Caste' which is recognized as a most Backward Class in the State of Bihar.
7. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Charge u/s 420/471 r/w 465 IPC was framed against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The Prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove their case.
PW1 M.A. Ibrahimi He was District Magistrate of Siwan, Bihar in the year 1985 and has deposed regarding Caste Certificate Ex.PW1/A not bearing his signature and seal of his office.
PW-2 Vakil Prasad Singh He was posted as Circle Officer,
Block Siwan, Bihar. He has deposed
that the procedure of issuance of
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 4 of 39
Caste Certificate and regarding
Vansawali Ex.PW2/2 and Survey
Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3.
PW-3 Jangu Ram He was posted as District Welfare
Officer, District Siwan Bihar in June
2009 and has deposed that Nonia
Caste was not considered
Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Bihar but was recognized as most
backward caste. He has deposed
regarding Bihar notification
Ex.PW3/1.
PW-4 Dharam Nath He was Peon in the Office of District
Welfare Officer during year 1995.
He has deposed that the signature of
Gangadhar Singh, District Welfare
Officer on Caste Certificate
Ex.PW1/A is forged.
PW-5 Devender Kumar He was posted as Deputy
Chauhan Commissioner, Income Tax, New
Delhi in July 2010. He has deposed
regarding letter Ex.PW5/1 whereby
vacancies for recruitment of
Inspector and Direct Recruitment
Quota for the period from 01.03.1991
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 5 of 39
to 28.02.1992 was intimated to Staff
Selection Commission (SSC).
PW-6 Sh. Virendra He was posted as District Welfare
Chaudhary Officer, District Siwan Bihar in June
2010. He has deposed regarding
Caste Certificate of the accused
Ex.PW1/A being fake and forged.
PW-7 Smt. Maya Yadav She is resident of Village Gyaspur,
Block Siwan, District Siwan Bihar.
She has deposed that accused
belongs to Nonia Caste.
PW-8 Sh. Ramji Baitha He is resident of Village Gyaspur,
Block Siwan, District Siwan Bihar.
He has deposed that accused
belongs to Nonia Caste.
PW-9 Sh. Rajender He was posted as Halka Rajaswa
Chaudhary Karamchari, Circle Office Siwan,
District Siwan, Bihar in the year
2010. He has prepared Vansawali
Ex.PW2/2.
PW-10 Sh. Harsh Bardhan He was posted as Deputy
Commissioner Income Tax, Delhi in
January, 1992. He has deposed
regarding offer of appointment
Ex.PW10/1 of accused for his
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 6 of 39
selection as Income Tax Officer and
order of appointment Ex.PW10/2.
PW-11 Sh. Govind Awasthi He was Sub-Inspector, CBI, Special Crime Branch-I in June, 2009. He has deposed regarding verification of ST Certificate dated 28.01.1995 of accused Ex.PW1/A and his verification report Ex.PW11/4. He had given the complaint for registration of FIR against the accused.
PW-12 Sh. K.C. Katoch He was Regional Director, Northern Region, SSC in the year 1991. He has deposed regarding mentioning of the accused in the ST category for the post of Income Tax Officer in letter Ex.PW12/1.
PW-13 Sh. Gyan Kumar He was District Welfare Officer in the Ram office of District Office Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar in August, 2012. He has deposed regarding letter Ex.PW13/A and had stated that ST certificate issuance register for the year 1985 could not be traced out.
PW-14 Sh. Jagvir Singh He was posted as Assistant Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 7 of 39 Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi from December, 1991 to 1993. He has deposed regarding letter Ex.PW14/A to Principal Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Kalkaji, for verification of character and antecedents of accused. He has deposed regarding receiving of letter Ex.PW14/C and verification report Ex.PW14/D. He has deposed regarding appointment letter Ex.PW10/3.
PW-15 Sh. Sanjay Sharma He was posted as Income Tax Officer, Delhi in the year 2010 and he has deposed that on 29.06.2010, CBI seized personal file Ex.PW15/B and service book Ex.PW15/C of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. PW-16 Sh. Harish Chander He was working as Chief Vigilance Yadav Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi in the month of July. He has deposed regarding search list dated 10.06.2009.
PW-17 Sh. S. Sridhar Iyer, He was posted as Sub-Inspector, Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 8 of 39 Inspector CBI CBI Special Crime Branch, New Delhi and conducted part investigation of the present case. He has deposed regarding his visit to Village Gyaspur, Block Siwan, District Siwan Bihar and recording of statement of witnesses. He has deposed regarding register Ex.PW17/A, the copy of declaration form Ex.PW17/B. PW-18 Sh. Vidya Bhushan He was posted as Copiest-cum-
Dubey, Comparing Clerk in the Office of DM,
District Siwan, Bihar. He has
deposed regarding Survey Khatiyan
Ex.PW2/3.
PW-19 Sh. Ashok Kumar He was posted as Copying Clerk in Sinha, the office of DM, District Siwan, Bihar and has deposed regarding Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3.
PW-20 Sh. Ramakant Rai, He was posted as Inspector of
Police, CBI, New Delhi. He has
deposed regarding the investigation
conducted in the present case.
PW-21 Sh. S.K. Munshi He was posted as Assistant
Controller (Business) at Publication
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 9 of 39
Division, Ministry of Urban
Development, Civil Lines, Delhi. He
has deposed regarding notification
Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B.
PW-22 Sh. Akhilesh Kumar He was posted as Pradhan
Yadav Adhyapak, Naya Prathmik Vidyalaya,
Gyaspur, District Siwan, Bihar. He
has deposed regarding attested copy
of admission register Ex.PW17/A.
After examining the aforesaid witnesses, PE was closed.
9. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has denied that his caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is false and fabricated. He has stated that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A was issued as per normal procedure and its entry is available on caste certificate issuance register of the relevant period, which has not been brought on record to show date of issue and issuance number. He has stated that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A was issued by the concerned department at relevant point of time.
9.1 He has deposed that his caste is 'Kharia' and Vanshawali Ex.PW2/2 is not correct. He has stated that Ex.PW2/3 is not the correct copy of original Survey Khatiyan and is a false document. He has stated that in the report of Backward Commission (3 rd Edition) Year 1976 of Bihar Government (Department of Personnel) Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 10 of 39 General Administration, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar, it has been specifically stated that sometimes, even the person with the caste of Kharia is called as Nonia. He has stated that name of his father was Bhagan Mahto S/o Late Ram Barat Mahto and Bhagan Mahto as stated by PW-2.
9.2 He has admitted his appointment as Income Tax Inspector on the basis ST Certificate dated 28.01.1985. He has admitted of submitting education qualification certificates and category certificate along with his application Ex.PW12/8. He has admitted of filing of attested copy of ST Certificate Ex.PW12/9 along with his application.
He has stated that a charge-sheet has been filed with false documents and concealing correct facts and he is innocent.
10. Accused has examined following witnesses in his Defence.
DW-1 Mukul Kumar DW-1 was witness to produce record. He was partly examined-in-
chief and his examination was
deferred. Thereafter, in his place,
DW-4 examined with respect to
relevant records. This Court vide
detailed order dated 26.08.2019,
dropped DW-1.
DW-2 Hemant Kumar He was working as CPIO (under RTI
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 11 of 39
Verma Act) with Directorate Census
Operation, Bihar, Patna. He has
deposed regarding documents
Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW2/2.
DW-3 Bijay Kumar He has deposed regarding the
Srivastava certified copy of letter Ex.DW3/B,
Ex.DW3/C, Ex.DW3/D and the
certified copy of Ex.DW3/E.
DW-4 Pratul Chandra He has deposed regarding the
Suman certified copy of RTI Ex.DW4/B.
DW-5 Ramesh Chand He has deposed regarding the
photocopy of letters dated
25.08.2010 marked as Mark-DW5/1
and photocopy of letters dated
15.10.2009 as Ex.DW5/2.
DW-6 Smt. Prabhawati She has deposed that she had
worked as Gram Pradhan of village
Gyaspur from the period 2006 to
2011. She has deposed regarding
handwritten certificate dated
26.06.2009 Ex.DW6/B, copy of
register Ex.DW6/C.
DW-7 Manoj Kumar Singh He has deposed regarding office memorandum Ex.DW7/A, service book of Sh. Ram Mahto along with Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 12 of 39 verification report of his Caste Certificate Ex.DW7/1 and service book of Yogendra Mahto along with verification report of Caste Certificate Ex.DW7/2. He has deposed regarding service book of Sh. Ram Mahto Ex.DW7/A and copy of noting in the file Ex.DW7/B. The service book of Yogendra Mahto is Ex.DW7/C. DW-8 Vijay Shanker He is brother of accused. He has Mahto deposed regarding certificate Ex.DW8/B, Caste Certificate Ex.DW8/C, Copy of Passbook Ex.DW8/D and other documents marked DW8/1. He has deposed with respect to contents of Ex.PW2/2.
DW-9 Kismati Devi She was Panchayat Pradhan of Mukhiya Village Gyaspur for the period from 2011 to 2016. She has deposed that accused belongs to caste Kharia.
11. No other witness was examined by the Defence and DE was closed.
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 13 of 39
12. I have heard the final arguments and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the brief synopsis filed by the accused and the judgements as relied upon by both the sides.
13. Ld. PP for prosecution has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the witnesses have proved the case of prosecution. The accused, on the basis of forged ST Certificate, obtained the job of Income Tax Inspector. The certificate is forged as proved by the witnesses and therefore, accused should be convicted. Ld. PP has further argued that in his application for job on the basis of ST certificate, accused has claimed age relaxation on the basis of his certificate and therefore, has been benefited from the forged ST certificate. Ld. PP has further argued that from the documents on record and the testimony of witnesses, it is proved that accused belongs to caste Nonia and not Kharia. Ld. PP has relied upon following judgements:-
1. Sarvjeet Mahto Vs. CBI Crl. Rev. P. 711/2012, Delhi High Court.
2. Sushil Kumar Dutta Vs. State 1985 CriLJ 1948 Calcutta High Court
3. State of Maharastra Vs. Milind & Ors. Appeal (Civil) 2294 of 1986 Supreme Court of India.
14. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the accused was given job as Head Clerk in Government Boys Senior Secondary School and later on in the Income Tax Department on the basis of the verification conducted by them and not on the basis of ST certificate.
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 14 of 39 Ld. Counsel has argued that after ST certificate was presented by the accused with the departments, they carried out the verification of the same before recruiting the accused and therefore, no offence of cheating is made out.
14.1 Ld. Counsel has further argued that accused was not the part of execution of ST Certificate and therefore, he could not have knowledge about the certificate being genuine or forged. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the CBI was having the copy of ST Certificate before the enquiry and registration of FIR and it is not explained as to how the copy of ST Certificate came into possession of CBI before the search was conducted at the house of accused.
14.2 Ld. Counsel has further argued that Survey Khatiyan is not of Gyaspur but of different area that is Gomeshpur and therefore, cannot be read as against the accused. Ld. Counsel has argued that the verification report as referred in para XV of charge-sheet has not been brought on record. Ld. Counsel has argued that accused deserves acquittal. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon following judgements:-
1. Mohammad Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751.
2. Vimal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2015 (V) AD 52 Delhi High Court.
3. Daya Ram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. AIR 2011 SC (Supp.) 678.
Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 15 of 39
4. GM Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani & Anr. (2007) 12 SCC 796.
5. Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.
(1994) 6 SCC 241.
15. The charges under Section 420 IPC and u/s 471 read with 465 IPC has been framed against the accused. Before proceeding further it would be fruitful to refer to the relevant provision of law.
16. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Ors. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Ors. Crl. App. No.238 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
"The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i. a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and ii. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security".
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 16 of 39 under Section 420."
Cheating is defined under Section 415 of Penal Code. Section 415 of Penal Code reads as:
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i. There should fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
ii. (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to delivery any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii. in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one, which cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for offence. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
17. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as under :-
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 17 of 39 intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
18. The making of false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. It is reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
"464. Making a false document: - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record - First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed"
In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community.
Further the expression 'intent to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 18 of 39 words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property.
The term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation.
The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention.
The relevant questions are (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.
In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently.
But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however, small.
The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 19 of 39 signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
19. Section 24 of the Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
20. Section 471 IPC deals with using of forged documents as genuine. It is reproduced as under:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record."
21. Coming to the present case, it is not disputed that accused Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 20 of 39 was appointed as Income Tax Inspector vide appointment letter dated 08.05.1992 Ex.PW10/2. It is also not disputed that accused gave joining report dated 19.05.1992. It is also not disputed that accused got the job of Income Tax Inspector on the basis of caste certificate dated 28.01.1985 Ex.PW1/A, wherein accused has shown himself of belonging to ST category. It is also not disputed that accused had deposited the attested copy of Ex.PW1/A with Staff Selection Commission. The above facts have been admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, when incriminating evidence against him was put to him.
22. According to the prosecution, the certificate Ex.PW1/A is a forged document and has not been issued by District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. However, accused has taken the contradictory stand. He has taken the defence, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, that the certificate is genuine and has been issued as per normal procedure and its entry is available on caste certificate issuance register of the relevant period. However, during final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that accused had the knowledge of the certificate being forged one.
23. Even when, accused has taken contradictory defence, it may be noted that it is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 21 of 39 settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts upon to the accused.
24. According to the prosecution, caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is a forged document and has not been issued by District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. The prosecution has examined PW-1, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-11 to prove that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is a forged document. Let's examine their testimony.
25. As per PW-1, the caste certificate is issued by Block Development Officer. Only in exceptional cases, caste certificate is issued by District Magistrate on the basis of caste certificate issued by Block Development Officer and recommended by Sub-Divisional Officer. As per PW-6 Virendra Chaudhary, for issuance of caste certificate, the candidate has to submit written application before Halka Karamchari. After the report of Halka Karamchari, Circle Inspector has to verify the record about the caste of the applicant. The report of Circle Inspector is to be received before BDO and Anchal Adhikari. Thereafter, the certificate is to be issued by BDO. After the issuance of the certificate by BDO, the concerned SDM has to issue the original ST certificate to the candidate in a Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 22 of 39 prescribed proforma. The certificate must contain the issuance number of BDO as well as number of office of SDM with date. The entry has to be made in the certificate issuance register maintained in the BDO office as well as SDM Office. If any candidate needs caste certificate from District Magistrate, then he has to apply in an application with original certificate issued from SDM concerned. The application comes to District Welfare Office and the Office District Welfare retains the certificate issued by SDM and fresh certificate is prepared. In the fresh certificate, the issuance number of SDM certificate is also mentioned and no direct certificate can be issued from the Office of DM without reference of SDM certificate.
Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 with respect to procedure for issuance of caste certificate have corroborated with each other. Both the witnesses have stated that the caste certificate is issued by BDO and DM issue the caste certificate only on the basis of the caste certificate issued by BDO.
26. PW-1 M.A. Ibrahimi was District Magistrate of Siwan, Bihar in the year 1985. He has deposed that the caste certificate in the name of accused Ex.PW-1/A is a fake certificate and it does not bear his signature and seal of his office. He has submitted that there is no signature of Block Development Officer or recommendation of Sub Divisional Officer on Caste Certificate Ex.PW1/A. The certificate has no date of issue and issue number on it. He has further stated that the caste certificate Ex.PW1/A bears signature of two persons Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 23 of 39 namely Kumar Chaudhary and H.C. Yadav dated 10.06.2009. The certificate was issued on 28.01.1985 and these persons have signed after a gap of about 14 years. These persons have no connection with the Administration of Siwan District. He has further deposed that generally caste certificates are issued in Hindi but this caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is in English.
27. The perusal of caste certificate Ex.PW1/A reflects that it does not bear any issuance number. As per PW-1, Ex.PW1/A is not bearing his signature and seal of his office. There is no GEQD opinion before the Court as to whether the signature on Ex.PW1/A is of PW-1 or not.
In the case of Murari Lal S/o Ram Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 AIR 531,the Apex Court opined that Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and two voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 24 of 39 is no expert. Where there are expert opinions they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
28. Since, neither prosecution nor defence has relied upon expert opinion to aid the Court, I restore to Section 73 Indian Evidence Act to find out whether Ex.PW1/2 contains genuine signature of PW-1 or the signatures are forged.
29. When the signature at point Q-1 Ex.PW1/2 is compared with signature of PW-1 on his testimony dated 03.10.2012, it is observed that both the signatures are completely different. Further, no suggestion has been given in the cross-examination by the accused to PW-1 that his signature on Ex.PW1/A is a genuine signature. In fact, no question was put to PW-1, in the cross-examination, regarding his signature on Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, it is proved that the signature on caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is not of Sh. M. A. Ibrahimi, District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar.
30. As per PW-4, Sh. Dharam Nath, caste certificate Ex.PW1/A does not bear the signatures of District Welfare Officer, Sh. Ganga Dhar and he could identify the signature of Ganga Dhar as he has worked with him in the year 1985. The said fact has also not been disputed by the defence in the cross-examination. Ex.PW4/1 is the admitted signature of Ganga Dhar. Perusal of Ex.PW4/1 reflect that Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 25 of 39 the signature of Ganga Dhar is nowhere on Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, Ex.PW1/A neither bears the signature of PW-1 nor of District Welfare Officer, Sh. Ganga Dhar and signatures are forged one.
31. As per PW-1, the date of issue and issuance number is not mentioned on the certificate. As per PW-6, certificate Ex.PW1/A does not bear any issue number and reference of issuance of certificate from SDM concerned. The certificate bears the round seal of District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar in brown colour and valid certificate must only contain the seal of DM in blue colour. The certificate is directly shown from the Office of DM without any reference of SDM concerned and no certificate can be issued directly. The certificate Ex.PW1/A was never issued from the Office of DM, Siwan, Bihar.
The perusal of Ex.PW1/A that it does not have issuance number. The certificate has been shown to have been issued by District Magistrate, Siwan Bihar but the certificate cannot be issued directly by the DM and the reference to the certificate issued by SDM must be on the caste certificate, when the application was moved for the issuance of certificate by DM. However, there is no reference of the certificate being issued by SDM or BDO.
In the cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that he can neither confirm nor deny as to whether caste certificate issued during the period 1980 to 1990 in the District Siwan by the Office of DM used to be in cyclo-style proforma. He has deposed that he had no Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 26 of 39 requirement to see the caste certificate issued between 1983 to 1999 and therefore he had not seen the certificate issued by DM, District Siwan.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that testimony of PW-6 cannot be relied upon as he had not seen the caste certificates issued between 1983 to 1999. I do not see any force in the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel. The defence has not led any evidence to show that the procedure for the issuance of caste certificate as adopted in 1985 was different from the procedure adopted in the year 2009 or a different format of caste certificate was used in the year 1985. Further, no question or suggestion was put to PW-6 in the cross-examination that he could not have deposed with respect to caste certificate Ex.PW1/A which was purported to have been issued in the year 1985.
32. The accused has taken the defence that certificate Ex.PW1/A has been issued as per normal procedure and entry is available on caste certificate issuance register. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has not produced caste certificate issuance register and therefore, it is not proved that Ex.PW1/A is a forged document.
33. I do not find any force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel. Even if the caste certificate issuance register has not been produced, the same is not detrimental to the case of prosecution as prosecution has proved that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is not bearing any issuance number and is not containing genuine Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 27 of 39 signature of PW-1 or of Block Development Officer. Further, if the certificate was issued as per normal procedure, then the accused must have filed an application before DM, Siwan, Bihar for issuance of Ex.PW1/A. However, accused has not produced any copy of such application in his defence to prove that he had duly applied for issuance of caste certificate. Further, nothing stopped the defence to call for caste certificate issuance register in the defence to show the relevant entry of issuance of Ex.PW1/A during the relevant period in the register. However, the defence has not led any such evidence to show that accused had ever applied for issuance of caste certificate Ex.PW1/A and that the same was issued as per normal procedure. In view of the same, even the lack of knowledge on the part of the accused of certificate Ex.PW1/A being forged cannot be presumed.
34. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the Caste Certificate Ex.PW1/A is a forged documents and has not been issued by District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. The prosecution has further proved that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is forged document and on the basis of caste certificate, accused was appointed as Income Tax Inspector in the category of Scheduled Tribes.
35. In Ex.PW1/A, the accused has shown himself as belonging to Kharia Caste. As per prosecution, the accused does not belong to Kharia Caste but he belongs to Nonia Caste, which is recognized as most backward class in the State of Bihar and therefore, Ex.PW1/A Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 28 of 39 is a false document. However, as per defence, the Kharia caste is also known as Nonia and in the report of Backward Commission (Third Edition) year 1976, of Bihar Government (Department of Personnel), General Administration, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar, it has been specifically mentioned that sometimes, the persons with the caste of Kharia are also called Nonia.
36. Once it is proved that caste certificate Ex.PW1/A is a forged document, it is immaterial to which caste the accused belongs as the certificate itself has not been issued by DM, Siwan, Bihar. However, since the question as to whether the accused belongs to "Kharia" or "Nonia" and whether, "Kharia" and "Nonia" are interchangeable term has been raised before the Court, I shall deal with the above issue.
37. The prosecution has examined PW-2, PW-3, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-18 and PW-21 in support of their contention that accused belongs to Nonia Caste and "Kharia Caste" is different from "Nonia Caste".
38. As per PW-2, the Vanshawali Ex.PW2/2 of accused was prepared by PW-9 Rajender Choudhary. He has deposed that he got verified the caste of accused from Rajender Chaudhary, Halka Karamchari and Incharge, Circle Inspector from the native village Gyaspur of accused. The caste of accused was verified from Survey Khatiyan and local people and accused and his forefather belongs to Nonia Caste. The certified copy of Survey Khatiyan is Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 29 of 39 Ex.PW2/3. He has further deposed that Khatiyan is most authenticated document for verification of the caste and same is 100 year old.
39. PW-9 Rajender Chaudhary was working as Halka Rajasw Karamchari, District Siwan Bihar in June 2010. His duties were to maintain revenue records including Survey Khatiyan. He has deposed that in the year 2012, he verified the actual caste of accused and prepared Vanshawali / Genealogy Ex.PW2/2. He prepared the same on the basis of local enquiry and Survey Khatiyan. As per Vanshawali and Survey Khatiyan accused belongs to Nonia Caste.
40. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3 does not belong to village Gyaspur but belongs to Gomeshpur. However, the argument is misconceived. In the testimony of PW-18, the defence had put the document Ex.PW18/D1 to the witness and the perusal of the document reflect that it is certified copy of Survey Khatiyan of Village Gyaspur, Pargana Narhan, PS Daruli, Thana No.521. It is the document on which the defence is relying. When Ex.PW18/D1 is compared with Ex.PW2/3, on Ex.PW2/3, village is mentioned Village Gyaspur, Pargana Narhan, PS Daruli, Thana No.521. Therefore, Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3 belongs to Village Gyaspur and as per survey Khatiyan, accused belongs to Nonia Caste.
41. The Vanshalwali / Genealogy of the accused is Ex.PW2/2. As Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 30 of 39 per PW-2 and PW-9, the same has been prepared on the basis of local enquiry and Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3. The perusal of Ex.PW2/2 reflect that it has been prepared as disclosed by Ramashankar Mahto, brother of accused. As per Ex.PW2/2, accused belongs to Nonia Caste. The name of the father of the accused is Bhagan Nonia, who is son of Ram Varan Nonia.
42. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that as per Ex.PW2/2, the enquiry was made against Ramapati Mahto S/o Bhagwan Mahto as reflected in the subject matter of Ex.PW2/2 but Vanshawali of Ramapathi Mahto S/o Bhagan Mahto has been produced and therefore, it is not the correct Vanshalwali and cannot be relied upon.
I do not find any force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, has disclosed the name of his father as Bhagan Mahto. Even in the charge as framed on 18.07.2012, the name has been disclosed as Bhagan Mahto. In the body of Ex.PW2/2, the name of father of accused is mentioned as Bhagan Mahto and merely because, the name of the father of the accused in the subject matter of Ex.PW2/2 is mentioned as Bhagwan Mahto, it does not mean that Ex.PW2/2 is not with respect to the accused. There is nothing on record to suggest that there were two different persons residing in Village Gyaspur as Ramapati Mahto S/o Bhagan Mahto and Ramapati Mahto S/o Bhagwan Mahto.
43. Nothing has come on record, in the cross-examination of PW-9 Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 31 of 39 and PW-2, which could raise any doubt on the genuineness of Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3. As per Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/3 and genealogy Ex.PW2/2, accused belongs to Nonia Caste.
44. The prosecution has examined PW-7 and PW-8 to prove that accused belongs to Nonia Caste and accused has examined DW-6 Smt. Prabhavati, DW-7 Manoj Kumar Singh, DW-8 Vijay Shankar Mahto and DW-9 Kismati Devi Mukhiya to prove that accused belongs to Kharia Caste.
45. PW-7 Maya Devi and PW-8 Ramji Baitha are public witnesses, who have deposed that they belong to Village Gyaspur and accused belongs to Nonia Caste. They have not produced any document in support of their contention. Further, when the caste of the accused is mentioned as Nonia in Survey Khatiyan, which is Government Record, testimony of PW-7 and PW-8 is irrelevant.
46. DW-6 Smt. Prabhavati has worked as Gram Pradhan of Village Gyaspur for the period from 2006 to 2011. She has issued certificate Ex.DW6/B to the accused stating that accused belongs to Kharia Caste. The perusal of Ex.DW6/B reflect that it has been issued by DW-6 on her letterhead. In Ex.DW6/B, it is not reflected on what basis, DW-6 has certified that accused belongs to Kharia Caste. Therefore, Ex.DW6/B cannot be relied upon. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show on what basis Ex.DW6/C has been prepared and Ex.DW6/C cannot be relied upon. Further, a letter issued by Gram Pradhan specifying the caste of accused without Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 32 of 39 relying upon any Government record cannot be considered when the Government record in the form of Survey Khatiyan is already before the Court.
47. DW-7 Manoj Kumar Singh has brought service book of Shri Ram Mahto S/o Sudama Mahto and his caste certificate dated 23.12.1986 as Mark-DW7/1. He has also brought the service book of Yogendra Mahto, S/o Sudama Mahto and his caste certificate Mark-DW7/2 of Yogendra Mahto. In the cross-examination, DW-7 has admitted that there is no relationship of Shri Ram Mahto and Yogendra Matho with the accused. The accused has also not led any evidence to show that he has any relationship with Shri Ram Matho and Yogendra Mahto. When there is no relationship between Shri Ram Mahto and Yogendra Mahto and accused, their service record and caste certificate are of no help to the accused. Further, caste certificate Mark-DW7/1 has not been proved as per law.
48. DW-8 Vijay Shankar Mahto has stated that he is brother of accused. Ram Varan Matho was father of Bhagan Mahto. He belongs to Kharia Caste and is Scheduled Tribe. He has worked in Fertilizer Corporation of India. He has brought on record the certificate from Fertilizer Corporation of India, copy of attested copy of School Transfer Certificate, Copy of Caste Certificate, Copy of Proforma for acceptance of VRS, Copy of Memorandum dated 31.12.2002, Bank Passbook. In his Aadhar Card Ex.DW8/A, the name of his father is mentioned as Bhagan Mahto. He has Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 33 of 39 produced the copy of caste certificate Ex.DW8/C to show that he belongs to Kharia Caste. The caste certificate Ex.DW8/C has not been proved as per law. The issuing authority of Caste Certificate Ex.DW8/C was not called in the witness box to prove the genuineness of caste certificate Ex.DW8/C. Further, the witness has admitted that caste certificate Ex.DW8/C does not bear any serial number, any endorsement of any issuing authority except the signature, date and stamp of issuing authority. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon Ex.DW8/C as it has not been duly proved. Further, DW-8 has given his opinion with respect to Ex.PW2/2 and has stated that entries in Ex.PW2/2 are wrongly made. However, apart from his oral testimony, defence has not produced any other documentary evidence to show that the entries in Ex.PW2/2 is not correct. Since, there is no basis on which DW-8 has claimed the entries in Ex.PW2/2 being false, his testimony cannot be relied upon.
49. DW-9 Kismati Devi Mukhiya has deposed that accused belongs to Caste Kharia. In the cross-examination, she has stated that according to her knowledge, accused does not belong to caste Nonia but Kharia. Therefore, the basis of deposition of DW-9 is only her knowledge and the basis of such knowledge has not been disclosed. Further, on the basis of Survey Khatiyan Ex.PW2/2, the knowledge of DW-9 is immaterial.
50. Therefore, prosecution has proved that accused belongs to Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 34 of 39 Nonia Caste and not Kharia.
51. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that Caste "Kharia" and "Nonia" are interchangeable and as per report of Backward Commission (Third Edition) Year 1976 of Bihar Government (Department of Personnel) General Administration, it has been specifically stated that sometimes the person with the caste of "Kharia" is also called as "Nonia".
52. Ld. PP for prosecution has argued that Kharia and Nonia are different and caste Nonia falls in the category of most Backward Classes in the State of Bihar. Ld. PP for prosecution has argued that the two caste cannot be interchanged and has relied upon Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Sarvjeet Mahto Vs. CBI Crl. Rev. P 711/2012 in support of his arguments that the notification are to be read with regard to the proof of caste and oral evidence to disprove notification cannot be taken into consideration. It is so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharastra & Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babu Lal Singh Parmar and Anr., AIR 2007 SC 295. The prosecution has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case Sushil Kumar Dutta Vs. State 1985 Cri L J 1948 and of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case State of Maharastra Vs. Milind & Ors. Appeal Civil No.2294, 1986 in support of above contention.
53. It is settled preposition of law that once there is a notification notifying the different caste in the category of ST, SC and OBC, the Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 35 of 39 notification has to be read as it is and a particular caste has to be considered accordingly. No oral evidence or any other documentary evidence be a part of any book, report can be considered contrary to the same.
54. PW-3 has placed on record the notification Ex.PW3/1 of Bihar Government in which it is stated that Nonia Caste was recognized as most backward caste in the State of Bihar. Perusal of Ex.PW3/1 reflect that caste 'Nonia' is mentioned in the category of OBC.
55. PW-21 has placed on record notification Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B. The perusal of notification Ex.PW21/A reflect that caste 'Kharia" in Bihar belongs to ST category and Ex.PW21/B reflect that caste 'Nonia' comes in the category of Other Backward Classes. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that accused belongs to Nonia Caste which falls in the category of Other Backward Classes.
56. In certificate Ex.PW1/A, accused has shown his caste as Kharia, whereas he belongs to caste Nonia. Therefore, false information has been provided in Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/A is also a false document.
57. DW-2 Hemant Kumar Verma has produced the copy of census of India, 1991 Ex.DW2/1, according to which caste Kharia comes in the category of ST in the State of Bihar. However, once the prosecution has proved accused belongs to caste Nonia and not Kharia, the testimony of DW-2 has no relevance. For similar reason, Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 36 of 39 the testimony of DW-3 is also irrelevant.
58. Ld. Defence Counsel has raised an argument that accused was earlier working with Government Boys Senior Secondary School No.02, Kalkaji for the period from March 1989 to 18.05.1992 and thereafter, he joined as Income Tax Inspector. Ld. Counsel has argued that verification of Ex.PW1/A was carried out at both the stages and it is only after verification, that the accused was given a job and therefore, accused has not cheated any of the department.
59. The similar contention was raised in a case Sarvjeet Mahto Vs. CBI (Supra). Dealing with the above contention, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that :
"11. There is also no merit in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the inquiry conducted by his employer, the said caste certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be genuine and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had produced the forged caste certificate to secure employment on the said post of peon.
12. The kind of inquiry that was conducted by the respondent was never placed before this court, but in any case of the matter any kind of inquiry which was conducted by the department, just to find out the authenticity of the caste certificate produced by the petitioner cannot be equated with the investigation carried out by the CBI to unearth the said forgery on the part of the petitioner. The respondent/ CBI with the help of material witnesses produced by it has successfully proved on record the said caste certificate produced by the petitioner as a forged and fabricated document."
60. Therefore, there is no merit in the above arguments of Ld. Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 37 of 39 Counsel. Further, PW-14 has deposed that he has sent a letter dated 30.01.1992, to Principle, Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Kalkaji for verification of character and antecedents of accused vide letter Ex.PW14/B. He received letter Ex.PW14/C issued by Principle, Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Kalkaji mentioning about the copies of verification report of character and antecedents of accused. The attested copy of verification is Ex.PW14/E. The perusal of Ex.PW14/E reflect that the as per Ex.PW14/E character and antecedents of accused was verified by Deputy Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Siwan and nothing came against him which could render his employment undesirable. Thereafter, PW-14 issued another letter Ex.PW14/F to Principle, Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Kalkaji stating that the antecedents report of DCP and District Magistrate has not been received. Those documents have not produced even before the Court to show that the antecedents were verified and caste certificate was verified from District Magistrate, Siwan. In the absence of verifying documents and the basis of verification thereof no reliance can be placed on Ex.PW14/E. Further, as observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Sarvjeet Matho (Supra), the enquiry conducted by the department just to find out the authenticity of caste certificate produced by the accused cannot be equated with investigation carried out by CBI to unearth the forgery and cheating on the part of accused.
61. Therefore, prosecution has proved that caste certificate Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 38 of 39 Ex.PW1/A is a forged document and accused belongs to caste Nonia and not Kharia. The accused used forged certificate Ex.PW1/A to get the employment of Income Tax Inspector. The accused induced the Income Tax Department to believe the caste certificate Ex.PW1/A as genuine and to give him the appointment as Income Tax Inspector. While claiming himself as belonging to ST Category, the accused has also claimed the age relaxation for the purpose of his appointment as is reflected from his application form Ex.PW12/6. Therefore, accused fraudulently used the forged caste certificate and cheated the Income Tax Department to get the employment as Income Tax Inspector.
62. On the basis of the above observations, accused Ramapati Matho stands convicted for an offence under Section 420 IPC and Digitally signed Section 471 r/w Section 465 IPC. ANU by ANU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2019.08.31 16:24:09 +0530 Announced in the open Court (ANU AGGARWAL) ON 27.08.2019 ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI Case No. CBI/108/2019 CBI Vs. Ramapati Mahto Page No. 39 of 39