Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . : Parshu Ram Prasad Digitally on 10 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI.
CBI Vs. : Parshu Ram Prasad Digitally
Case No. : 107/2019 signed by
HARJYOT
RC No : RC11/2009/SCIII/ND HARJYOT SINGH
U/s : 420/471 IPC SINGH BHALLA
BHALLA Date:
Branch : CBI/SCIII/Delhi 2020.02.10
15:29:43
+0530
JUDGMENT
a) The date of commission of the offence : In the year 1988
b) Name of the Complainant : Source Information Information
c) Name, parentage & address of accused : Parshu Ram Prasad S/o Late Shiv Shankar Prasad R/o I378, Ansari Nagar, Staff Quarters, AIIMS, New Delhi Also At:
I398, Ansari Nagar, AIIMS, New Delhi110029
d) Offences complained of : 420/471 IPC
e) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Date of institution of case : 31.03.2011
g) Date of final arguments : 01.02.2020
h) Date of Reserving Judgment : 01.02.2020 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 1 of 36
i) Final order : Convicted for offence under Section 471 of IPC.
j) Pronouncement of Judgment : 10.02.2020 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The present case has been registered against accused Parshu Ram Prasad on the ground that he got permanent appointment as Laundry Operator in All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi under the ST category on the basis of a forged Caste Certificate bearing no. A/S1/111 dated 25.07.1988 allegedly issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. It is also alleged that in the said certificate"Gond" was mentioned as his sub caste, although, he belongs to "Kanu" caste which is a backward caste of Bihar. It is further alleged that the School Leaving Certificate of the accused was also forged and, investigation carried out at the school revealed that, no such certificate was issued to the accused.
2. The CBI carried out investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charges under Section 420/471 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The Prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove its case:
PW1 Sh. S.K. Gupta Senior Account Officer, Budget Section Department, Consumer Affairs, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. He had worked at CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 2 of 36 AIIMS as Account Officer from October 2007 to 2011. He was called to prove an exhibit the salary certificate of accused from January 1996 to December 2009. PW2 Ms. Leela Justine UDC, AIIMS, M.S. Building, AIIMS, New Delhi. She exhibited the interview letter (Ex.PW2/1) issued to the accused for the post of Laundry Operator (reservedST) and she proved the signatures of Sh. S.C. Dhingra on the same. She also exhibited and proved the signatures of SC Dhingra on other documents pertaining to the recruitment process as also the appointment letter of accused Parshu Ram Prasad (Ex.PW2/5), his biodata (Ex.PW2/9) and one letter dated 23.11.1989 addresses to DM, Siwan regarding verification of character and antecedents of accused.
PW3 Ms. Anju Dixit LDC, AIIMS who appeared as the custodian of service book and personal file of accused and she exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1.
PW4 Sh. Ramji Prasad Neighbour of accused at village Harpur, District Siwan, Bihar. He deposed that accused belongs to "Kanu" caste and the occupation of his family was chula jhokna.
PW5 Sh. Ram Brij Shah Brother of accused. He claimed ignorance about his caste and deposed that his family occupation was farming and chula jhokna.
PW6 Sh. Arun Kumar Neighbour of accused at Harpur, Siwan who also deposed that accused belonged to "Kanu" caste and was an OBC.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 3 of 36 PW7 Ms. Savita Kumari LDC, AIIMS since 2007 who proved the seizure memo of the personal file, service book, attested form etc. of the accused and exhibited the same as Ex.PW7/A. She exhibited the service book as Ex.PW7/B, personal file as Ex.PW7/C and the recruitment file as Ex.PW7/E and the attestation form as Ex.PW7/F. PW8 Sh. Prem Nath Rai Sh. Prem Nath Rai used to work in the Revenue office in the year 1989. He deposed that it was his duty to collect the rent and to verify the caste and character of residents of the village Goria Kotli and neighbouring villages. He exhibited the Khatiyan (Ex.PW8/C) which contained the family chart (Ex.PW8/B) of the accused. He deposed that the accused belonged to "Kanu" caste on the basis of the Khatiyan register.
PW9 Sh. Jagat Nandan Retd. Additional Secretary who worked as Prasad District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar from 1986 to 1988. The said witness exhibited the letters sent under his signatures Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2 to prove his signatures, as also the title used on documents issued by his office. He deposed that the caste certificate Ex.PW9/3 was never issued from the office of the DM and Collector and the same did not bear his signatures. That the format and the title of the said caste certificate was also wrong inasmuch as the actual caste certificates used to bear the title "Office of the District Magistrate & Collector". He, however, was unable to comment on the rubber stamp used on the said Ex.PW9/3. He exhibited the CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 4 of 36 photocopy of his Pan Card handed over to CBI as Ex.PW9/4 and identified his signatures on the same. He further deposed that there was no title/office of "Zila Samaharta Adhikari" at Siwan, Bihar and the correct post was District Magistrate & Collector.
PW10 Sh. Birender He had worked as District Welfare Chaudhary Officer in District: Kalyan Branch, Siwan in the year 2010. He proved the letter issued by ADM as Ex.PW10/1. He exhibited the certified copy of the relevant pages of the caste certificate issue register for the entry at serial no. 111 as Ex.PW10/2 and identified his signatures, certifying the copy at point A. He deposed at the entry at serial no. 111 as per Ex.PW10/2 was in the name of one Kalandar Ram and not that of the accused. He deposed that in view of the absence of stamp of the District Magistrate as well as corresponding entry at serial no. 111 on the original of Ex.PW10/2, caste certificate Ex.PW9/3 was forged. He also deposed that no certificate had been issued on 25.07.1988 from the office as per the record. He had also exhibited the list of caste and their categorization by the Bihar Government as Ex.PW10/3 and its seizure memo as Ex.PW10/4.
PW11 Sh. Babu Lal Prasad He was a teacher at SBR High School in Baldiha, Basantpur in the year 1983 and in the year 2010 he became Incharge, Head Master in Prem Chand High School at Sarari. He was examined to show that the accused was never a student of the SBR High School. He exhibited copy of CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 5 of 36 the admission register and sample transfer certificates as Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/5 and identified his signatures on the copy, certifying the same as correct.
PW12 Sh. Zakir Hussain Ward Member in Ward No.1 at Village Harpur and he deposed that accused belonged to "Kanu" caste whose job was chula jhokna and that he was not a "Gond".
PW Sh. S.C. Dhingra Administrative Officer at AIIMS during 13A period 19821992 and he proved his
(two witnesses were signatures on the relevant documents given the number handled by him in his capacity as PW13 and therefore, Administrative Officer (19821992). He they have been exhibited the various documents which reassigned the number show that the post of Laundry Operator PW13A and PW13B) was reserved for ST and corroborated the testimony of PW2.
PW Sh. Mahesh Prasad He was also posted as District Welfare 13B Officer, Siwan, Bihar in the year 2010. He proved a seizure memo dated 03.12.2010 and exhibited the same as Ex.13/A. He also identified the signatures of PW9 on the letters already exhibited as Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2. He further exhibited the attested copy of list of District Magistrates, Siwan posted from 03.12.1972 to 07.07.2010 as Ex.PW13/B (D4). He identified his signatures on the attestation done by him on the said list.
PW14 Sh. Narender Mehto IO, DSP, CBI, SCIII, New Delhi. He deposed regarding the investigation carried by him in the present case.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 6 of 36
4. Prosecution has exhibited following documents: Ex. PW1/1 Letter no. F.vig678/2005 Ex. PW1/2 Salary certificate of accused bearing code no. H0 5037 (colly) Ex. PW2/1 Interview letter of the accused Ex. PW2/2 Page no. 5 and 6 of Recruitment file i.e. interview related documents Ex. PW2/3 Page no. 9 of Recruitment file Ex. PW2/4 Page no. 37, 39, 44, 56, 60, 67, 68, 73, 74 and 93 of Recruitment file Ex. PW2/5 Appointment letter of accused Ex. PW2/6 Typed copy of Appointment letter of accused.
Ex. PW2/7 Page no. 125, 128 and 129 of Recruitment file i.e.
(colly) Interview related documents
Ex. PW2/8 Home Town Declaration AIIMS dated 06.11.1989
Ex. PW2/9 Bio data of accused
Ex. PW2/10 Page no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Recruitment Notesheet
(colly)
Ex. PW2/11 Letter dated 23.11.1989
Ex. PW3/1 Page no. 8 of Service book
Ex. PW3/2 Page no.16 of Service book
Ex. PW7/A Letter dated 25.01.2010
Ex. PW7/B Service Book
Ex. PW7/C Personal file
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 7 of 36
Ex. PW7/D Note portion of personal file
Ex. PW7/E Recruitment file
Ex. PW7/F Attestation form
Ex. PW8/A Original of Khatiyan
(colly)
Ex. PW8/B Family chart of accused dated 04.03.2010
(OSR)
Ex. PW8/C Copy of Khatiyan
(colly)
Ex. PW8/D Statement of Prem Nath Rai
Ex.PW9/1 Letter dated 29.09.1988 issued from the office of District
Magistrate
Ex.PW9/2 Letter dated 29.09.1988 issued from the office of District
Magistrate
Ex.PW9/3 Alleged Forged Caste certificate dated 25.07.1988
Ex.PW9/4 Photocopy of Pan Card of PW9
Ex.PW9/5 Statement of Jagat Nandan Prasad
Ex.PW10/1 Letter issued by ADM
Ex.PW10/2 Documents i.e. signed and attested two sheets from Caste
Certificate Issuance Register
Ex.PW10/3 Notification of Bihar Government with list of caste of
reserved categories
Ex.PW10/4 Receipt memo
Ex.PW11/1 Receipt memo dated 25.02.2010
Ex.PW11/2 List of candidates/students (page no. 21)
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 8 of 36
Ex.PW11/3 List of candidates/students (page no.23)
Ex.PW11/4 Transfer Certificate dated 23.08.1986
Ex.PW11/5 Transfer Certificated dated 11.12.1986
Ex.PW13/1 Letter issued by Employment Exchange
Ex.PW13/2 Memorandum dated 17.01.1984
Ex.PW13/3 Letter dated 19.07.1984
Ex.PW13/4 Letter dated 28.09.1984
(colly)
Ex.PW13/5 Memorandum of AIIMS dated 04.04.1988
Ex.PW13/6 Office copy of interview call letter dated 04.04.1988
Ex.PW13/7 Letter of accused
Ex.PW13/8 Letter issued to Commissioner SC/ST dated 13.08.1988
Ex.PW13/9 Letter to Employment Exchange dated 04.04.1989
Ex.PW13/10 Letter to Employment Exchange, Kasturba Gandhi Marg
dated 23.05.1989
Ex.PW13/11 Letter dated 31.05.1989
Ex.PW13/12 Recruitment letter dated 14.08.1989
Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of documents
Ex.PW13/B Attested copy of list of DM Siwan from 03.12.1972 up
till 17.07.2010
Ex.PW14/A1 FIR
(colly)
Ex.PW14/A2 Service book of accused
(colly)
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 9 of 36
Ex.PW14/A3 Seizure memo dated 16.02.2010
Ex.PW14/A4 Seizure memo dated 22.03.2010
(colly)
Ex.PW14/A5 Experience certificate of accused from 01.02.1986 to
30.04.1986
Ex.PW14/A6 Experience certificate of accused from 01.07.1986 to
31.12.1986
Ex.PW14/A7 Experience certificate of accused from 01.04.1987 to
30.06.1987
Ex.PW14/A8 Experience certificate of accused from 01.01.1988 to
31.03.1988 and 01.05.21988 to 31.07.1988
Ex.PW14/A9 Khatian in respect of land of accused
Ex.PW14/A10 Seizure memo dated 10.05.2010 Ex.PW14/A11 Letter dated 17.09.1987 Ex.PW14/A12 Letter dated 30.09.1987 Ex.PW14/A13 Letter dated 06.06.1989 Ex.PW14/A14 Experience letter of accused Ex.PW14/A15 Final approval dated 25.08.1989 Ex.PW14/A16 Letter dated 25.02.2010 Ex.PW14/A17 Letter to Deputy Account General, Patna Ex.PW14/A18 Letter dated 29.11.2010 Ex.PW14/A19 Letter to District Magistrate Siwan Ex.PW14/A20 Seizure memo dated 29.11.2010
5. After examining the aforesaid witnesses, PE was closed. In a nutshell, CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 10 of 36 besides the IO, who appeared as PW14, prosecution examined four type of witnesses i.e.:
firstly, those who were employed at AIIMS and were required to prove the service record / recruitment record of the accused as ST ( i.e., PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW13A (SC Dhingra));
secondly, those who were involved in the process of issuance of the caste certificate, or responsible for preserving /handling records of the said office, to prove that the same was forged ( i.e., PW9, PW10 and PW13B (Mahesh));
thirdly, those who were aware about or could prove the caste of the accused as "Kanu" and not "Gond"( i.e., PW4, PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW12); (and for reasons stated below their testimony is irrelevant and has been ignored) fourthly, those who could prove that the School Leaving Certificate was forged i.e., PW11.
6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he had no information about PW7 Savita Kumari had handed over his service book to CBI. However, he admitted the document Ex.PW7/F which was his Attestation Form. He does not know about the other document. He stated that PW8 Sh. Prem Nath Rai has never met him nor any of his family members and he had no idea from where he had prepared the family chart. He further stated that the caste certificate Ex.PW9/3 was sent to him by post to Delhi as at that relevant time, he was working in AIIMS, Delhi. He stated that he had CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 11 of 36 no idea as to what issuance register Sh. Birender Chaudhary had brought. He stated that caste certificate is not a forged document and it was so wrongly submitted by Sh. Birender Chaudhary. He further stated that Sh. Babu Lal Prasad had not brought the correct documents to the court neither he had brought the originals of the same. He stated that he was a student of Prem Chand High School at Sarari. He stated that PW2 Sh. Zakir Hussain had wrongly submitted that he belong to "Gond" caste. He stated that he was not having good relations with him so he had deposed falsely. He stated that he had not idea as to the documents and facts submitted by Sh. S.C. Dhingra and Sh. Mahesh Prasad. He stated that he does not know Sh. Mahesh Prasad. He stated that he had not idea as to what documents Smt. Savita Kumar handed over to the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He stated that his original caste certificate was not in his service book. He stated that he had handed over all the documents that were asked from him by CBI and which were in his possession. He stated that he belonged to caste "Gond" and the job done by his caste is "Chula Jhokna" and his whole family doing the same job. He stated that at the time when caste certificate was issued at Siwan, he was working as temporary laundry operator at AIIMS and his late brother Sh. Chandrika Shah had sent him by post the caste certificate in original which he submitted in AIIMS. He stated that he had given the original caste certificate to PW3 Ms. Anju Dixit in the month of December, 2009 and CBI never asked him for the same. He stated that he had worked for about 20 years in AIIMS and no complaint had been received against him. He stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 12 of 36
7. Accused examined three witnesses in his defence who tried to prove that the chief occupation of the family of the accused had been Chula Jhokna which was the prime occupation of "Gond" caste.
8. In view of the aforesaid evidence and the stand of the prosecution and the accused following questions arise for consideration:
firstly, whether the certificate Ex.PW9/3 was never issued by the concerned authority and was forged?If so, who had forged it?
secondly, whether the accused has used the forged caste certificate knowing or having reason to believe that the same was forged?
Thirdly, whether the School Leaving Certificate was never issued by the concerned authority and was forged?If so, who had forged it?
fourthly, whether the accused has used the forged School Leaving Certificate knowing or having reason to believe that the same was forged?
fifthly, whether the accused had made a false claim that he was of "Gond" caste and whereby obtained employment by practicing deception?
sixthly, what offence has been committed?
9. At the outset, I may point out that CBI has sought to prove that accused has forged/used forged caste certificate and School Leaving Certificate. These are two different documents issued by two different authorities. The caste certificate is alleged to have been issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan and CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 13 of 36 the School Leaving Certificate is of a Public School. The caste certificate is being claimed as forged on two counts: firstly, that the same was never issued by the DM concerned and there is no record of the same having been issued; and secondly, the claim that accused belongs to "Gond" tribe is itself false, as he belongs to "Kanu" caste.
10. I shall first deal with the claim that the caste certificate (Ex.PW9/3) is forged because the accused does not even belong to "Gond" caste which is mentioned on the certificate. I shall do so briefly, ignoring the testimony of PW4, PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW12, as the said claim cannot be gone into by this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.
11. The IO who was examined as PW14 was on 09.05.2017 cross examined on the aspect of referring the said caste certificate to a Scrutiny Committee and the relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced hereinafter:
It is correct that caste certificate of accused Parshu Ram Prasad was not sent to Directorate of Social Welfare for verification. It is correct that I am aware that there is a scrutiny committee constituted under Directorate of Social Welfare which verifies questioned caste certificates. It is correct that I did not send the caste certificate of accused to the said Scrutiny Committee during investigation. It is correct that the original caste certificate of accused Parshu Ram Prasad was not cancelled by scrutiny committee till date.
12. Clearly, in the present case, the certificate or the claim that CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 14 of 36 accused did not even belong to "Gond" caste was never referred to a Scrutiny Committee as directed to be done by the Supreme Court in the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. Therefore, the argument that accused was not even of "Gond" caste and therefore, the document was definitely forged, cannot be even looked into.
13. I would now deal with the case law dealing with the Supreme Court's direction in the Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) and the nature of obligation it created on the State agencies for deciding the claim pertaining to caste claims.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241 had laid down the detailed procedure for scrutiny of caste certificates whenever a complaint with regard to its forgery is received which is mandatory and required to be followed, which observations I quote as under:
"....... The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 15 of 36 generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent Gazetted Officer or non Gazetted Officer with particulars of castes and sub castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned Directorate.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/ Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.
In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 16 of 36 knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 17 of 36 an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims visavis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day to day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an office or CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 18 of 36 post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or nonofficial and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 19 of 36 candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post......" (Emphasis is mine)
15. In the year 2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GM, Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani & Anr. reported in 2007 (12) SCC 796 was dealing with the question whether the directions made in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) were directory or mandatory and the Supreme Court concluded that the aforesaid directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) were not mere guidelines but had the binding force of law till a suitable legislation was placed on the said aspect by the legislature.
16. I may further observe that the validity of the directions given and guidelines laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri patil (Supra) came up for reconsideration in the case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleaded to uphold the directions issued by it earlier in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) as having been issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution as being valid and laudable as they were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. In fact, in the case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court modified only two of the directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) but at the same time held that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee has to be given finality on the question of fact since each Scrutiny Committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the Committee. The relevant portion CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 20 of 36 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"...... Each Scrutiny Committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the Committee. The core function of the Scrutiny Committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is received by the Scrutiny Committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examine the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the Committee......"
17. It was made clear in the case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (Supra) that the Vigilance Cell can make such an inquiry as it may deem expedient and submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who after giving due hearing to the parties and considering the caste status and objections raised, may pass appropriate orders. It was also observed that the Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal but an administrative body which verifies the facts. It investigates into a specific claim of caste status and ascertains whether the caste/ tribal status claimed is correct or not.
18. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241; GM, Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani & Anr. reported in 2007 (12) SCC 796 and Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) SCC 333 is binding not only upon the investigating agency but also upon this court.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 21 of 36
19. In view of my above discussion and by applying the principles as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241 as upheld in the cases of GM, Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani & Anr. reported in 2007 (12) SCC 796 and Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) SCC 333 to the facts of the present case, it is writ large that on receipt of the information, the CBI did not refer the present case to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which was mandatory.
20. When confronted with similar issue, the various High Courts i.e. the Gauhati High Court in the case of Sanjib Mazumdar @ Sonti Mazumdar Vs. Sate of Assam reported in 2015 (2) Gauhati Law Reports 216; the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Netram Vs. Koushlendra Singh reported in 2013 SCC Online MP 10538; the Bombay High Court in the case of Bajrangsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 SCC Online Bom 1531 and our own Delhi High Court in the case of Vimla Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2015 SCC Online Del. 7173 had intervened and specifically held that the lodging of criminal case on the allegations of the petitioner having obtained a Caste Certificate by practicing fraud, is impermissible and all criminal proceedings emitting from the same to be a nullity requiring to be set aside and quashed.
21. Therefore, the issue that the accused did not belong to "Gond" caste cannot be gone into by this court in these proceedings. Therefore, the forgery CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 22 of 36 cannot be proved on the basis of the claim that accused never belonged to "Gond" caste and he had forged or used the said forged certificate to gain an advantage.
22. I would, at this stage, like to deal with the submission of the counsel for the accused that no criminal proceedings can be initiated for forging a caste certificate unless the matter is referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee. The said submission may not be completely correct. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) carefully use the expression "certificate issued". What the Supreme Court intended was that if a certificate is found to have been issued by competent authority on the basis of false claim or documents, the same would require scrutiny of the Committee and only thereafter, the same was required to be cancelled. The same cannot be extended to any document which may have been prepared by a person sitting at his home and which is not issued by any Government Department as such a document cannot be said to have been "issued". Therefore, the Supreme Court has in my humble view never directed that in cases of blatant forgery also no prosecution will lie unless the document is referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, this court would be precluded only from going into the question of which is the caste of the accused and not if the document produced was never even issued by any Government Department. It may be pointed out that Supreme Court has not expressly stated that no prosecution will lie under any circumstance but has stated that if a claim is found to be false or a document was gotten "issued" on false claim, prosecution shall be initiated on the basis of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the forgery of a document i.e. of a purported CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 23 of 36 caste certificate never issued by any authority can always be looked into by criminal courts and the claim that a certificate was obtained on the basis of false claim of caste cannot be gone into by the courts.
23. Whether a particular document is forged or genuine can be established by direct evidence or indirect evidence. Direct evidence may be in the form of the statement of the person in whose name/favour the document has been issued (in this case, the said person is accused and he cannot be expected to prove that the document is forged); or statement of the person who has prepared the document and signed the same as maker thereof (in the present case, the concerned officer who has issued the certificate as District Magistrate has been examined as PW9). Further, the records kept at the concerned office may be proved to show that such certificate was never issued (on this aspect the certified copy of the relevant register has been attempted to be proved). The said fact may also be proved by way of indirect evidence such as by placing on record scientific opinion that the contents of the same are in the opinion of an expert manipulated or forged. However, no such exercise to place any scientific opinion has been carried out in the present case and the case has to proceed on the testimony of the then DM, Siwan, Bihar who was the authority for issuing such certificates and the certified copy of alleged caste certificate issuance register Ex.PW10/2.
24. Therefore, for answering the first question, I would now refer to the testimony of PW9 who issued the certificate and PW10 and PW13 who were the custodian of records of the concerned office at the time of investigation.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 24 of 36
25. PW9 Sh. Jagat Nandan Prasad deposed that he had worked as District Magistrate, Siwan since 1986 to 1988. He proved his signatures on the letters Ex. PW9/1 and Ex. PW9/2 which had been issued from the office of District Magistrate near about the time when the alleged caste certificate was issued. He categorically deposed that the caste certificate Ex. PW9/3 had never been issued from the office of District Magistrate and Collector and that the same did not bear his signatures. He further proved the photocopy of his Pan Card(Ex. PW9/4) containing his signatures on attestation and that the same was handed over by him to CBI. He deposed that the title of the document was also wrong. He deposed that the title of office 'Zila Sama Harta Adhikari' never existed and there was no such post as was mentioned in Ex. PW9/3 and the correct designation / post was "District Magistrate and Collector."
26. This witness was duly cross examined. He admitted that there was a post of Deputy Collector or 'oop Sama Наrta Adhikari'. He denied the suggestion that Caste certificates are issued by Land Revenue officials of the village. He admitted that he used to issue caste certificates on the basis of information received from subordinate officers and he did not have any personal knowledge thereof. He admitted that he never handed over the exact format which was used to issue caste certificates. He admitted that he signed sign in Hindi and English language. He maintained that during his tenure as District Magistrate & Collector, no other official was authorized to sign the document in his absence.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 25 of 36
27. He denied the suggestion that he had met CBI Officials before appearing in the court or that CBI officials told him what to depose before the court.
28. Now PW 10 Shri Birender Chaudhary deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted in District: Kalvan Branch Siwan in Bihar as District Welfare Officer and was handling the work of issuance of Caste Certificate as well as attestation and verification of the same, under the supervision of the Department. He exhibited a letter Ex. PW10/1 issued by ADM Concerned. He had worked as District Welfare Officer in District: Kalyan Branch, Siwan in the year 2010. He proved the letter issued by ADM as Ex.PW10/1. He exhibited the certified copy of the relevant pages of the caste certificate issue register for the entry at serial no. 111 as Ex.PW10/2 and identified his signatures, certifying the copy at point A. He deposed at the entry at serial no. 111 as per Ex.PW10/2 was in the name of one Kalandar Ram and not that of the accused. He deposed that in view of the absence of stamp of the District Magistrate as well as corresponding entry at serial no. 111 on the original of Ex.PW10/2, caste certificate Ex.PW9/3 was forged. He also deposed that no certificate had been issued on 25.07.1988 from the office as per the record. He had also exhibited the list of caste and their categorization by the Bihar Government as Ex.PW10/3 and its seizure memo as Ex.PW10/4.
29. In his cross examination he maintained that he had handed over the document Ex. PW10/3 to CBI. He admitted that he had not handed over the original seal or the stamp/impression of original seal even on a blank paper to CBI. He admitted that he had not brought the original of Ex. PW10/2. He CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 26 of 36 however, denied that the documents which he handed over to CBI and which were exhibited during his examination in chief were wrong and incorrect.
30. PW13 Sh. Mahesh Prasad deposed that on 03.12.10 he was posted as District Welfare Officer in District Siwan, Bihar. He proved a seizure memo dated 03.12.2010 and exhibited the same as Ex.13/A. He also identified the signatures of PW9 on the letters already exhibited as Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2. He further exhibited the attested copy of list of District Magistrates, Siwan posted from 03.12.1972 to 07.07.2010 as Ex.PW13/B (D
4). He identified his signatures on the attestation done by him on the said list. The said Ex. 13/B, the name of DM Sh. Jagat Nandan Prasad is mentioned at Sr. No. 9 (encircled in red) posted as DM Siwan from 07.09.86 to 22.11.88.
31. In his cross examination he stated that he was the only Distsrict Welfare Officer, in District Siwan in December, 2010. He stated that the documents which were seized by CBI, were in the custody of Office Assistant but he did not remember his name. He admitted that signatures of the then DM Sh. Jagat Nandan Parsad on EX. PW9/2 and PW9/3 (the official letter/order) were not affixed in his presence and he had never signed in the presence of the witness. He admitted that he had not brought the original of EX. PW13/B.
32. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that entries made in the Ex.PW13/B were incorrect. He admitted not having personal knowledge of the entries made in Ex. PW 13/B. He deposed that the Entries at serial no. 2526 in EX. PW13/B were made in his presence. He admitted that the CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 27 of 36 official named at entry no. 25 was transferred before his posting in District, Siwan. He admitted that he did not know the name of person in whose handwriting the entries were made at serial no. 2526.
33. The Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the entire case of the prosecution must fail as original register for issuance of caste certificate, the original list of officers posted at Siwan as District Magistrate & Collector and thirdly, the original school leaving register were never produced. It is further contended that even certified copies are not proper or the document cannot be considered as a public document for which certified copy could be read in evidence.
34. Ld. Counsel has contended that the copy of the caste certificate register is a two page extract of which, the cover page has not been placed before the court. That the oral statement of the dealing clerk i.e. PW10 that the copy was of caste certificate register was not sufficient to prove that it was the caste certificate register. The register should have been proved by exhibiting at least the cover page with detailing of Department, year, maintained by etc.
35. The documents were not public documents inasmuch as most classic feature of the public document is it is maintained in the ordinary course of business while discharging the official duties for that particular purpose only. The extract randomly from register has failed to pass the tough test of Section 35, Evidence Act specially when the original register was in possession of the prosecution they could have brought the original register or the certified copy of the descriptive page. None of the column has even guiding heading.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 28 of 36
36. Since the document has come from the office of Kalyan Branch, there is all possibility and probability that the register may be of some other Welfare Scheme. Section 74 and Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act move together and cannot be read separately. Moreover, PW10 has stated that caste certificate does not bear the stamp of the office of the District Magistrate. But nobody has lead evidence as to what was the stamp of the DM. Not even the attested copy of the seal was brought on record by any of the witnesses.
37. Although, the argument of the Ld. Defence counsel seemed lucrative at the first instance, it loses it sheen when the cross examination of PW9 and PW10 are considered properly. No suggestion was put to PW10 who proposed to prove the certified copy of the caste certificate register as Ex.PW10/2 that the certified copy produced by him was manipulated or not of the caste issuance register or that he had intentionally not produced the cover page of the register which would have shown that the register was of some other activity. Entries in the said certified copy are self speaking and the presumption that official acts are performed as per procedure has not been rebutted by the defence by way of cross examination. Needless to mention that in this day and age when Right to Information Act is in force, the accused had the ability to seek a copy of the caste certificate register if he was so sure that the witness PW10 had intentionally supplied a manipulated certified copy or a copy of some other register.
38. It may be pertinent to take note of provisions contained in Section 74, 76, 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as follows:
74. Public documents.The following document are CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 29 of 36 public documents: (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
76. Certified copies of public documents. Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation. Any officer who by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.
77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies. Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.
79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy, or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 30 of 36 [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.
39. Therefore, I cannot throw the certified copy produced before me as inadmissible or doubt the veracity thereof. I may also refer to Section 65 of the Evidence Act and more specifically the first and third explanation to the Section squarely cover the present case.
40. Section 65 reads as follows:
65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 31 of 36 neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence;
(g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
41. Since it is a record kept by a Government Department in Siwan and contains vital information regarding caste certificates issued to individuals decades back, it qualifies as an original of such a nature as not to be easily movable and therefore any secondary evidence of its contents is admissible and secondly, since it is also a public document within the meaning of Section 74 as it forms the records of acts of public officers of India even certified copy is admissible in view of the third explanation. Therefore, the certified copy of the caste certificate register (Ex.PW10/2) and the certified copy of the list of DMs (Ex.PW13/B) are admissible in evidence and there is no doubt that they are relevant to the fact in issue.
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 32 of 36
42. (However, I am in agreement with the counsel for the accused that the record pertaining to the school leaving certificate, inasmuch as it has not been established that the school was run by Government, cannot be considered as a public document whose certified copy can be taken in evidence.)
43. From the Ex.PW13/B it is established that PW9 was the DM of Siwan during the period when Ex.PW9/3 is alleged to have been issued. Witness PW9 has categorically denied having issued the same. He has also exhibited and proved Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2 which are letters bearing his signatures as also which show the title of documents issued under his signatures was very different from the one used in Ex.PW9/3. While Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2 bear the title "Samharnalya Siwan" the document Ex.PW9/3 bears the title "Jila Samharta Adhikari, Samharnalya, Siwan". Similarly, the issuing authority, as per Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2 is "Samharta Siwan"
whereas the issuing authority as per Ex.PW9/3 is "Jila Samharta Adhikari".
The testimony of PW9 that such manner of representing the title/designation was not adopted during his tenure cannot be ignored.
44. The Certified copy of the caste certificate issuance register Ex.PW10/2 corroborates the testimony of PW9 that the caste certificate was not issued during his tenure as there is no record of the issuance of the same. Therefore, it stands established that the Ex.PW9/3 was never issued by the office of the District Magistrate and Collector. The same is definitely not genuine and is forged. However, there is no scientific evidence that or other evidence that the accused had forged the said certificate. It is a matter of record that the accused was working at AIIMS on the same post as contract labour even before it was CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 33 of 36 proposed to be filled for regular appointment and therefore was working for gain and residing at New Delhi. The prosecutions own documents i.e., experience certificates issued by AIIMS to the accused which can be found in the recruitment file and, can always be read against the prosecution without formal proof thereof. He has also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that his brother had sent him the Caste Certificate by Post. Therefore, for want of direct and circumstantial evidence it cannot be said that the accused had committed forgery.
45. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly.
46. That takes me to the second question i.e., whether the accused had knowingly or having reasons to believe that the said certificate was forged used the said certificate as genuine? Testimony of PW1, PW 2, PW3, PW 7 and PW13A (Sh. SC Dhingra) and the documents exhibited by them show that accused got recruited against the post of Laundry Operator at AIIMS against the reserved vacancy meant for ST candidate and he had produced caste certificate Ex.PW9/3 in support of his claim that he belonged to ST category. Therefore, it stands established that he had used the said certificate as genuine.
47. Section 471 of IPC reads as follows:
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 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 34 of 36 manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
48. Clearly accused has also not adduced any evidence on how he got hold of the said certificate. He has only made a claim that the same was received by him via post from his brother when he asked his brother to arrange the same. No suggestion was given by him to PW9, PW 10 and PW13 that he had made an application to the office of the DM concerned on any particular date and authorized his brother to collect the same. He has also not stepped into the witness box to depose on the said aspect and explain how he came to hold the said certificate. How he came in possession of the said certificate is a fact known specially to him and in view of Section 106 of evidence Act he had to show that he was deceived to believe that the said certificate was genuine and how he was so deceived. The expression reasons to believe would have to be gauged on the test of what a reasonable man would have believed. If the accused never made an application, never went to the office of the District Magistrate, never issued any authority in favour of his brother how the said certificate could have been issued in his favour by the Department. Moreover, the fact that his brother had so sent him the certificate has not even been established. In my view therefore the accused would have had reasons to believe that the certificate was forged and he still used it. This question is also answered accordingly and is answered against the accused.
49. As far as question no. 3 and 4 are concerned testimony of only PW11 has to be seen. In may view the IO failed to carry out investigation on the said aspect in a proper manner. The original record pertaining to admissions or transfers from the school was never produced. It has not been established that CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 35 of 36 the school was run by Government. PW11 the sole witness relevant to this issue admitted that he had not brought the original school register. None of the exhibits Ex.PW11/2, Ex.PW11/3 (Alleged admission register), Ex.PW11/4, Ex.PW11/5 (SLC of Lal Babu Tiwari, Lal Babu Prasad) are proved/explained as per the law. In these circumstances the school registers cannot be considered as a public documents whose certified copy can be taken in evidence. The issue therefore cannot be decided for want of evidence.
50. As already indicated in the findings pertaining to question no.1 that this court will not go into the issue of caste of the accused, question no.5 need not be answered.
51. In these circumstances, in view of answer to the question no.2 hereinabove, it is established that accused has used a forged document as genuine. Since the issue of his caste has not been decided, it cannot be said that he obtained a job for which he was not qualified being an OBC and not an ST. Therefore, in these circumstances, he is held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 471 of IPC.
52. Convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open court (HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA)
on 10.02.2020 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Prasad page 36 of 36