Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No.DLCT11-000955-2025
Misc. No. 478/2025
CC No. 32/2021
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 13/2013
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
25.04.2026
O R D E R
1. This order will decide the application under Section
379 r/w Section 215 BNSS filed on behalf of the applicant/accused
Joginder Singh for inquiry into the offence of tampering with the
judicial record.
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that at
the time of supply of documents under Section 207 Cr.PC, the
accused persons were not provided with a copy of the sanction order
with respect to the applicant/accused Joginder Singh. Instead, the
sanction order pertaining to co-accused Neeraj Kumar was placed
twice. He further submitted that he had also inspected the judicial
file at the stage of scrutiny of documents in the year 2021 and it was
found that even on the court record, the sanction order in respect of
Neeraj Kumar was placed twice and no sanction order with respect to
the applicant/accused Joginder Singh was there but on 13.05.2025, at
the time of examination-in-chief of PW-4 Sh. Ashish Madhaorao, he
was shocked to learn that the file was containing the sanction order
allegedly granted with respect to applicant/accused Joginder Singh
and therefore, the applicant/accused apprehends that the said sanction
order has been introduced into the record at a later stage by
tampering with the judicial record as the same was not present
earlier.
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused further argued
that the physical copy of the chargesheet provided to the applicant as
well as the chargesheet in the CD did not contain any pagination
whereas the present judicial file is paginated which raises strong
suspicion that the record has been subsequently tampered with. He
further argued that at the time of the inspection in the year 2021, the
pagination in the judicial file was done with a pencil but presently,
the judicial file is paginated in red ink and the said change in
pagination raises serious doubt that the documents have been
subsequently added/substituted. He submitted that the above facts
prima facie disclose commission of offences relating to fabrication of
judicial record under Sections 229/233/236/337/340 BNS r/w Section
215 BNSS and therefore, a preliminary enquiry be initiated as per
Section 379 BNSS and thereafter, a complaint under Section 215
BNSS be directed to be filed against the persons found responsible
for such tampering.
4. IO has filed the reply to the said application denying all
the allegations levelled in the application.
5. Report from the then Ahlmad has also been received
who has stated that at the time of filing of the chargesheet, all the
documents were duly checked and verified as per the list of
documents submitted along with the chargesheet. He further stated
in his reply that the pagination of the documents was initially done
with pencil by the IO at the time of filing of chargesheet and
subsequently, as per the usual court practice/procedure i.e. while
sending the file to Copying Agency etc., the pagination was later
done in red ink and the traces of earlier pagination with pencil are
still visible beneath the pagination with red ink on all the documents
of the judicial file. It is also stated in the reply that the pagination
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
with red ink is procedural in nature and does not indicate any
tampering, alteration, addition or removal of any document from the
judicial file.
6. Ld. PP for the State argued that no such tampering has
ever taken place; the allegations of tampering with record are
absolutely false and baseless and the judicial file is the same as was
at the time of filing of chargesheet. He further argued that handing
over of the duplicate copy of accused Neeraj Kumar’s sanction order
may be a clerical oversight during photocopying/binding/arranging
sets for accused which cannot be said to be tampering of record and
the same does not affect the applicant/accused Joginder Singh in any
way. He submitted that red ink pagination may have been done later
by court staff as per routine practice but it does not change any
document; that sanction with respect to applicant/accused is valid as
PW-4 Sh. Ashish Madhorao has already deposed on 13.05.2025 that
he personally granted sanction for Joginder Singh after due
verification; that all documents i.e. physical chargesheet, CD with all
papers including his sanction were supplied to the applicant/accused
and even after inspection of the judicial file in the year 2021, he
never raised any objection earlier and therefore, the present
application has been filed only to delay the trial and thus, liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard the submissions and perused the record.
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused Joginder Singh
has alleged fabrication of judicial record under Sections
229/233/236/237/336/337/340 BNS r/w Section 215 BNSS on the
ground that when he was supplied the copy of the chargesheet and
accompanying documents, sanction order with respect to the
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
applicant/accused Joginder Singh was not there and that he was
supplied two orders pertaining to the sanction of accused Neeraj
Kumar. He also argued that on inspection of the judicial file, he
found that the file is paginated at two places on each page, one with
pencil and the other with red pen which shows tampering. Both the
allegations of the applicant/accused will dealt with separately as
under:
I. Absence of sanction order pertaining to accused Joginder Singh:
9. The averment of the applicant/accused that the sanction
order pertaining to accused Joginder Singh was not on the file is
primarily based on the premise that a copy of the same was not
supplied to him. He has averred that he was supplied two copies of
sanction order pertaining to accused Neeraj Kumar and not the
sanction order pertaining to accused Joginder Singh. This cannot be
the basis to presume that the sanction order pertaining to accused
Joginder Singh was not on the file. It cannot be denied that in
photocopying or making the sets for the accused certain documents
could be missing or in double which is why provisions like section
207 Cr.PC. exist. Thus, just because copy of the sanction order with
respect to accused Joginder Singh was not supplied to the applicant/
accused or the co-accused does not mean that the same was not filed
on the court file. Secondly, as per record, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/ accused Joginder Singh did not file any application under
section 207 Cr.PC. mentioning that sanction order with respect to
accused Joginder Singh has not been supplied to him.
10. It is also the contention of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/
accused that he had inspected the file and even upon inspection, the
sanction order was not found. If such was the case, the applicant/
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
accused should have challenged the order on cognizance dated
02.09.2021 as no cognizance can be taken by the court in the absence
of the sanction order. In fact, the order on cognizance dated
02.09.2021 specifically states that
“Both the accused were working in
MCD and against them sanction u/s 19 of POC Act, 1988 have been
obtained on 12.04.2021.” This shows that the Ld. Predecessor of this
court has seen and considered the sanction orders with respect to both
the accused persons including applicant/ accused Joginder Singh
while passing the order on cognizance. This, in turn, means that the
sanction order pertaining to applicant/ accused Joginder Singh was
also on record even on 02.09.2021.
II. Tampering of judicial file:
11. It is the case of the applicant/accused Joginder Singh
that pagination has been done on two places on each page, one with
the pencil and the other in red ink and thus, the judicial file has been
tampered. As per the report/reply from the then Ahlmad, the
pagination with pencil was done by the IO while pagination with red
ink was done by him later as per procedure while sending the file to
Copying Agency. He has categorically stated that no tampering has
taken place and nothing has been added, altered or removed from the
file. The then Ahlmad submitted that the sanction order with respect
to applicant/accused Joginder Singh was filed with the chargesheet
and is still there.
12. Careful perusal of the judicial file shows that the
pagination was done with the pencil and then with red ink. However,
perusal also shows that the serial no. of the pagination on the
sanction order of applicant/ accused Joginder Singh done with the
pencil is the same as that in red ink. There is no change in the number
of the pagination but only that it has been done in red ink. In fact, the
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
later documents at pages 89 and 90 also clearly show that the
pagination is in continuation and same numbers are marked in red ink
as the pencil. This shows that no document has been added or
removed. The then Ahlamd has already explained that the pagination
is required to be done in ink to send the file to copying agency etc.
and marking it in red ink is just a matter of procedure. Thus, this
court is of the view that the apprehension of the applicant/accused
that the file has been tampered with is completely baseless.
13. Further and more importantly, PW-4 Mr. Ashish
Madhaorao More has already been examined and he has also deposed
in his examination-in-chief that he had had granted sanction against
Joginder Singh after full verification.
14. In view of the above, this court does not find any
tampering in the judicial record or any ground to initiate any enquiry
in the present matter. Thus, the present application is dismissed.
The application is accordingly disposed off.
Announced in the open court today
on this 25th day of April, 2026.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
Misc. No. 478/25 in FIR No. 13/13 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
	Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --