RAJAN GUPTA, J.:–The matter pertains to a degree issued to an Officer of Punjab, namely, Parampal Singh Gandhi @ Param Pal Singh by Magadh University, Bodhgaya (Bihar).

2. An FIR i.e., Magadh University PS Case No. 46 of 2015 was registered alleging that the petitioner possessed a fake degree. In detailed FIR, various allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused were levelled. At the stage of framing charge, it appears that petitioner moved an application for discharge from the case. His grounds are laid out in the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IX, Gaya, in detail. A perusal of the charges and materials on record as also the law pertaining to framing of charge, the trial Court came to the following conclusion:—

“The charges proposed are cheating, forgery, using forged document and conspiracy. For cheating dishonest or fraudulent inducement to somebody is essential. Forgery presupposes creation of false documents and for conspiracy agreement between the two or more persons is necessary. Here, it is not shown when and where any person was deceived and dishonestly induced to do or omit to do something. In whole of the police report apart from the letters and communications there are documents such as degree, marks-sheet, tabulation register. As per the definition of false documents given u/s 464 of I.P.C. degree and marks-sheet are not under the category as it is not alleged that anybody dishonestly or fraudulently signed this or that there were any alterations made in it. There is overwriting and manipulation in Tabulation Register and it can be covered by thirdly of Sec. 464 but the involvement of the petitioner is nowhere seen in the whole police report, only suspicion has been cast that too when the manipulation is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Similarly nowhere in the police report there is anything except suspicion that the petitioner met or entered in any agreement with anybody for doing an illegal act. It is true that at this stage the Court is not required to evaluate the evidences and arrive at a conclusion that materials are sufficient for conviction. But if it is shown that whatever evidence the prosecution proposes to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, can not show that the accused committed the particular offence, there would be no ground for proceedings with the trial. On the basis of above discussion made in the light of the order dated 28.10.2016 of Hon’ble High Court in Cr. WJC No. 993 of 2016 it seems that even if all the materials proposed by the prosecution is accepted as true it can not definitely show that a particular offence has been committed by the accused. Hence, accused-petitioner Parampal Singh Gandhi is discharged from this case. Put up on 16.3.17 for charge of remaining accused.”

3. Thus the Court discharged the petitioner from the case.

4. State challenges this order by way of a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge- X, Gaya. It was inter alia contended before the said Court that the Magistrate had gone into appraisal of evidence which was not called for at the initial stage. It was also stated that the entire case was initiated due to anonymous applications received in the year 1998 in the office of ADGP, Internal Vigilance in which it was alleged that petitioner was appointed on the basis of fake and forged degree of B.A.

5. As per record, an Officer of the Punjab Police was entrusted with the enquiry to visit the Magadh University and submitted his report holding that the certificate held by the petitioner was suspicious and, thus, recommended that the FIR should be registered. However, the enquiry was closed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, who reported that he had received information from the Magadh University that the certificate issued was correct and there was no need or reason to proceed further with the inves