The defense of an accused is not to be considered while framing charges.

JUDGMENT

asha Menon, J. - This petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 7th October, 2020, passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (P.C. act) (CBI) ('Special Judge', for short), Rouse avenue District Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th January, 2020, passed by the learned aCMM-2-cum-aCJ ('aCMM' for short), Rouse avenue Courts, New Delhi, be set aside.

2. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in Case No.CBI/430/2019, under Sections 420/471/467/468 read with Section 201 IPC. The allegations against him are that he submitted a forged experience certificate allegedly obtained from M/s Krishna Engineering Company, to the UPSC and was offered the position of Training Officer in the Directorate of General Employment and Training (DGE&T). Subsequently, when the certificate was verified, it was found to be forged. Without the requisite certificate of experience, the petitioner was not eligible to even apply for the post. Hence, the proceedings were initiated against him.

3. It was considered appropriate by the learned aCMM to frame charge under Section 420/468/471/201 IPC but not under Section 467 IPC. This was upheld by the learned Special Judge vide the impugned order.

4. It is the submission of Mr. ashesh Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned aCMM could not have framed charge under these sections. In fact, it is his submission that since the complaint on the basis of which the entire enquiry has supposedly commenced, was an anonymous one under the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) circular dated 29th June, 1999 (annexure P-15 (Colly)), it could not have been entertained. But the complaint was straight away forwarded by the Department without inquiry and without concurrence. It was pointed out that the experience certificate dated 30th June, 1999 (annexure P-11) had been duly verified by the Department on 24th March, 2004, and it was declared to be 'found genuine', as recorded in the Service Book (annexure P-12), and a letter dated 24th March, 2004 was also written from the partner of M/s Krishna Engineering Company to the Director, DGE&T, stating that the experience certificate issued to the petitioner was genuine. Thirdly, no one had the original certificate. according to the learned counsel, the petitioner had handed it over to the office, but two witnesses have stated to the Investigating Officer that the records have been weeded out, or that the file has been misplaced. In the absence of the original document, forgery cannot be proved.

5. Citing the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court in Srichand P. Hinduja v. State through C.B.I, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 676, it was argued that the denial of the signatures on the photocopy will lead nowhere, as no evidentiary value attaches to a photocopy. It was submitted that the charge-sheet did not allege that the alleged forgery had been made by the petitioner. Therefore, charge under Section 468/471 IPC and even Section 420 IPC was not made out. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 622 to urge that if there was no forgery, no case for cheating was made out. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581.

6. The learned counsel finally argued that for appointment, experience of only two years was required and even if the year 1993 was ignored, the petitioner had three years experience in 1999, when the certificate was issued. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be discharged as no case was disclosed even if all facts were to be admitted.

7. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, on the other hand, contended that the certificate was a false one, as the very first se