The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of forgery provisions under the IPC.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of discharge dated 07.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Special Judge, CBI-03, (PC Act) South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 493/2006 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC was registered in P.S. Hauz Khas against the respondent Ms. Bina Ramani (hereinafter at some places referred as accused”). As per prosecution case, during investigation of Jessica Lal murder case in FIR No.287/1999, Police Station Mehrauli, it was revealed that accused Bina Ramani was running a Restro-Bar in the name and style of “Once Upon a Time” without any valid license for serving liquor. The owner of the said restaurant had simply obtained a license from MCD for running an eating house. The restaurant was also registered with DCP (Licensing). It was found that the photocopies of the relevant documents submitted by accused Bina Ramani for obtaining license from Health Department of MCD for running an eating house named “Once Upon a Time” at Mehrauli Road, New Delhi i.e. Rent Receipts pertaining to property of 1990-91, “No Objection Certificate” of the land lord dated 09.09.1997, Ration Card and Bills of different shops, were forged. As per prosecution, lease of the property was granted to accused Bina Ramani vide note dated 08.05.1986 with specific condition that property would not be used for running restaurant. In order to neutralize the effect of that condition, accused prepared forged “No Objection Certificate: dated 09.09.1997 purportedly issued by one of its previous owner Sh. Diwan Chand. As per prosecution, the date mentioned below the forged signature of Sh. Diwan Chand on the “No Objection Certificate” was in the handwriting of the accused George Mailhot. During investigation, it was found that rent receipt was also forged to show that the accused was running restaurant in 1990-91. The son and nephew of Sh. Diwan Chand have confirmed the forged signature on “No Objection Certificate” and rent receipts. It was also revealed during investigation from the office of the concerned FSO that ration card was not issued by the authorities concerned.

3. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, vide order dated 14.01.2015, learned CMM discharged the petitioner from all offences except for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and directed to frame the charge under Section 471 IPC against her. The State had preferred the revision petition before the learned Additional Session Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2015. However, the oral submission made on behalf of the respondent were treated as revision on behalf of her and accordingly the respondent was discharged from all the offences.

4. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that in the revision preferred by the State, the oral submissions made by the respondent were wrongly treated as revision petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner and while dismissing the revision petition filed by the State, the oral submissions made by the respondent were allowed and she was discharged from all the offences, which is totally perverse and uncalled for.

5. It is further contended that the respondent had forged the valuable security including NOC allegedly issued and signed by the owner of the property to run the restaurant in the rented premises which is punishable under Section 465 of IPC. In addition, on account of forging the documents for the purpose of cheating besides other offences mentioned in the charge sheet, the petitioner is liable to be charged for the offence under Section 467 IPC or at least under Section 468 of IPC. Not only this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that there is grave error committed by learned Additional Session Judge by treating the