Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1947 PW 2019 State Vs Sachin and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008792-2019
ORDER BELOW EXH.7
1. Perused record. This is an application filed under Section 239 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, by Accused No.2, Mrs. Maninder Kaur Jagir
Singh Cheema, hereinafter referred as applicant, for discharge from the
matter.
Grounds pleaded for discharge -
2. By way of this very short application applicant sought discharge
mainly on the following grounds -
i. There is no iota of evidence against the applicant in the charge sheet. It
does not contents any effective facts or evidence against the applicant.
ii. The material facts of the case can not be determined against applicant and
the accusations upon her are unsubstantiated and vague.
iii. There is no evidence to connect the applicant with the Sections of law
applied, there is no cogent evidence to substantiate the charge against her.
Objections raised by prosecution -
3. The Ld. A.P.P. strongly objected to it stating that offence is
cognizable and non-bailable which is well founded. After investigation
prima facie involvement of the applicant made out. Her role clearly
transpired in cheating, making and using forged documents. Ld. A.P.P.
also relied on judgment of Ramnarayan Mor and anr. Vs State of Maharashtra
(A.I.R. 1964 SC 949) and contended that even if some offences made out
accused can not be discharged.
Brief facts of the case -
4. In the year 2015, total 147 persons were recruited by Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay, as Laboratory Technicians, holding the
required qualification i.e. Degree in Science faculty and Diploma in
Medical Laboratory Technology from Maharashtra State Board of
Technical Education. After appointments, one person named as Mr.
Laxman Gharat, filed written complaint with the appointing authority
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 1947 PW 2019 State Vs Sachin and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008792-2019
alleging that out of those appointed candidates, who produced their
certificates in support of their qualification, obtained from Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar University, North Maharashtra University and Bundelkhand
University, Jhansi, are forged and bogus.
After verification with concerned Universities the certificates
produced by Accused Nos.3 to 9, are found fake and bogus.
Then all of them were terminated from their services. Smt. Sudha
Datta Masoorkar, Administrative Officer, attached with Public Health
Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, lodged report
against them and other persons. Then all the accused persons including
present applicant were arrested. After completion of investigation the
present final report/charge sheet is filed in this court.
5. After filing of the charge sheet the accused filed present application
on above referred grounds.
Arguments of both the parties -
6. Heard both the sides at length. During arguments, both the parties
made submissions in tune with their respective contentions. Ld. Advocate
for the applicant submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant
to connect her with the allegations. However, Ld. A.P.P. negatating said
contentions relying on the evidence produced submitted that there is
enough material on record and accused can not be discharged.
Evidence in the charge sheet -
7. The record of investigation i.e. charge sheet reflects that the First
Information Report was lodged against Accused Nos.3 to 9. Then the
statements of various witnesses were recorded. From those statements
the role of the applicant Mrs. Maninder, was transpired. Initially Accused
Nos.3 to 9, were arrested and thoroughly interrogated. Then applicant was
also arrested. The accused persons initially arrested and some witnesses
narrated the role played by accused. Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 1947 PW 2019 State Vs Sachin and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008792-2019
8. The other accused persons and some witnesses specifically stated
that the present applicant was instrumental and was actively involved in
all the acts of forging relevant documents produced in informant’s office
on the basis of which the Accused Nos.3 to 9, were joined in services.
Their statements reflects that how she made false representations to
Accused Nos.3 to 9 and obtained money from them for such acts. She
found to be involved in all the transactions of forgery and cheating
pertaining to Accused Nos.3 to 9.
9. The charge sheet clearly reflects that after her arrest applicant
confessed to the crime. During her interrogation she shown the spot of
incidence where all the documents were forged. In that regard, some
recoveries were also made at her instance. The allegations are very
serious. The oral and documentary evidence collected during
investigation clearly shows involvement of the accused in the alleged act
of cheating and forgery.
10. The law pertaining to discharge of accused before trial, is now well
settled. After going through all the statutory provisions and precedential
law, recently Supreme Court, in case of Vikarmjit Kakati Vs State of Asam
(2022 SCC OnLine 967), summarized certain principles pertaining to law of
discharge, as follows -
10. Before we proceed to examine the matter on merits any further, it
will be apposite to take note of the legal principles applicable seeking
discharge, for which we may refer to a judgment of this Court in P.
Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Another, which has been further reiterated
by this Court in the recent judgment in M.E. Shivalingamurthy v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru and discerned the following
principles:
“17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be
empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the
instance of the prosecution.
Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 1947 PW 2019 State Vs Sachin and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008792-2019
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence
would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents
produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove
the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in
cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot
show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise
to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not
entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on
record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong
suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.”
11. As stated above the active involvement of the applicant/accused, on
the basis of cogent and trustworthy material transpired in the present
matter. If we considered the above principles in the context of this fact
and material produced on record, it can be easily inferred that the grounds
pleaded are not enough to discharge the accused. She is bound to face the
trial. Accordingly, following order -
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 19.12.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --