Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Notice of the revision was sent to the State. Trial court record was requisitioned. I have heard the ld counsel for the revisionist, Ld Addl. P.P for the state and perused the record.

4. Ld counsel for the revisionist submitted that so far as case of revisionist Jitainder Kumar is concerned, there is no evidence against him. There is no recovery from his possession or at his instance or on his pointing out. He was arrested on 01.10.2003 as per record and the recovery had already been affected on 31.08.2003. Revisionist is also not named in the FIR. The signature and handwriting of the revisionist was sent for comparison with the alleged forged documents and the report of the handwriting expert does not link him with the offence. There is nothing on record that he has prepared any forged documents or used any forged documents as genuine or was found in possession of any counterfeit seal or documents. He was not in possession of any forged counterfeit seal or stamp or document or counterfeit stamp or mark which he intended to use as genuine. Ld counsel submitted that even otherwise in the present case Ct Zaffar Khan was made a decoy customer where the court has many times held that the police should join a public witness as a decoy customer. Even the shadow witness was from the police and hence the whole story of the police has become doubtful. There is no direct evidence to link him with the commission of the offence. It is well settled principle of law that the court must apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and is not a mouth piece of the prosecution but here in the present case Ld M.M has not considered the fact that there is no evidence against the revisionist Jitainder Kumar.

7. Ld Addl. P.P submitted that in the present case there was a secret information with the police, on the basis of which Ct Zaffar Khan was sent as a decoy customer with a shadow witness Ct Jai Pal and the revisionist Ram Sewak agreed to supply the forged document/ OBC caste certificate /character certificate for Rs 10,000/- and Rs 4,000/- was given to him. He was apprehended red handed while supplying the fake and forged certificates from his possession many seals, stamps and documents were recovered which were used for preparation of forged documents and issuance of certificates. He also got recovered the counterfeit seal and stamps and the forged documents from the office of revisionist Jitainder Kumar. They were doing it in furtherance of conspiracy hatched between the accused persons. Sometimes they themselves signed the documents. Ld Addl. P.P submitted that there is ample evidence on record that the accused persons were acting in furtherance of the conspiracy reached between them. It is prayed that revisions be dismissed.

8. The record shows that revisionist Ram Sewak was apprehended red handed while delivering the forged certificates. He also got recovered the other forged document from his office along with counterfeit seals and stamps. The counterfeit seals, stamps and documents are also recovered from the office of revisionist Jitainder Kumar. They used to forge and fabricate the documents to get the approval of the authorities regarding the caste certificates and domicile certificates and sometimes they have themselves signed it. Report of the handwriting expert shows that the questioned document Q1 and Q2 are in the hand of the revisionist Ram Sewak. The contention of the ld counsel that the decoy customer should not have been from the police as the courts have many times held that the decoy customer must be from the public. There is no dispute regarding the contention that the courts have many times held that the decoy customer must be from the public and not from the police official. The evidentiary value of statement of Ct Zaffar Khan in the facts and circumstances of the case it is to be seen at relevant time.