Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Allegation of fraud and forgery has been leveled against the petitioner in as much as the respondents case is specific that the appointment letter by virtue of which he joined the service was forged. The word forgery has been defined in New Gresham Dictionary as under:-

'Forgery- Act of forging; the act of fabricating or producing falsely; the crime of counterfeiting a person's signature on a document; that which is forged, fabricated, or counterfeited.' In Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary the word forgery has been defined as under:-

14. If the written document is made for purpose of deceit or fraud it will be a forgery. Therefore, forgery is done for the purpose of deceit or fraud. Forgery has been defined in the Indian Penal Code. Section 463 runs as follows:-

'463. Forgery- Whoever makes any falsed documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with 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.'

15. Section 470 IPC defines.' forged document. Section 470 is quoted hereunder:-

'470. Forged document or electronic record- A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated "a forged document or electronic record.."

16. Section 465 IPC provides for punishment for forgery and Section 471 IPC deals with offence of using a forged document as genuine. The FIR registered against the petitioner was under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC. The written information dated 4.3.1991 given by respondent No. 3 to station officer police station Gauri Bazar, Deoria (as contained in Annexure CA-5) was on the basis of the letter dated 16.1.1991 of the respondent No. 1. The CBCID investigated the case and came to a different conclusion vide its final report dated 31.12.1995. Since the said investigation was done under the provision's of the Code of Criminal Procedure the report would attain finality only upon its acceptance by the court.

25. The respondents have stated that the investigation done by CB CID was not correct and that the matter requires to be investigated through another agency. This court also finds that the inquiry conducted by the respondents was not on the actual issue involved and the petitioner has not brought on record any fact to show that the final report of CB CID had attained finality.

26. For the reasons stated above, no effective relief can be given to the petitioner at this stage. The genuineness or otherwise of his appointment letter still remains unresolved. Therefore, in such peculiar circumstances the said issue requires to be resolved. Forgery or a forged document can only be proved or disproved by evidence. Such evidence is lacking in the present case as indicated by the record and therefore, no definite conclusion can be arrived at with respect to the genuinness of the appointment letter. Since there are two contradictory findings arrived at by two different authorities therefore, the respondent No. 1 is directed to get such issue resolved/investigated through another agency or himself and to such effect he shall pass suitable orders within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The said enquiry shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months of its inception whereafter the logical consequences shall follow without any undue delay. The petitioner shall be given full opportunity.