The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of primary evidence to prove forgery and the limitations of relying solely on photostat copies as secondary evidence in establishing criminal liability.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by Suvinder Kaur @ Shavinder Kaur against the order dated 17.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurkshetra, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1990. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the said order dated 17.7.1990 and restoring the order dated 31.3.1989 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, whereby she had been discharged.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that Jai Pal President, Yuva Sangh, Kalayat, District Jind, made an application dated 16.7.1987 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Hisar, regarding embezzlement of lakhs of rupees in the office of the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O. for short), Kalayat. In his application the complainant submitted that officials of the C.D.P.O. had in connivance with Statistical Assistant made lakhs of rupees. The details of which are given therein. It is stated that these officials issued bogus experience certificates regarding experience of Anganwadi Workers. Instances of some of the girls, who were made to pay amounts ranging Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- have been given. It is stated that Neelam daughter of Amrit Lal, who was posted as J.B.T. teacher at Simla, Tehsil Narwana paid Rs. 15,000/-, whereas this girl never worked as Anganwadi worker. In this manner, her experience certificate was forged showing her to be having three years experience. Similarly, Shashi Prabha wife of Subhash Chander, who was posted as JBT teacher at Government Nursery School in the city (opposite Govt. Girls School), paid Rs. 15,000/-. She worked as Anganwadi worker in village Dhakal for one year but was issued forged certificate in the year 1985 wrongly showing her to be having three years experience. This was alleged to have been done by accepting money. Similarly, reference has been made to the case of one Kanta Girdhar, who was working as J.B.T. teacher in village Kheri Kalasar (Kalayat Block), whereas she never worked as Anganwadi worker. However, after accepting Rs. 15,000/- from her Statistical Assistant Kalayat issued her a certificate of three years experience as Anganwadi worker. This certificate was also forged one and was issued in the year 1985. These were alleged to be fraud on the Government. It was alleged by the complainant that as per the Rules any girl who has worked an Anganwadi Worker for three years at any place can appear in the J.B.T. examination and not otherwise. It is indicated in the application that there were about 35 cases of this type, of which officials of Child Development Office (C.D.P.O.) Kalyat, Tehsil Narwana, have embezzled lakhs of rupees by issuing forged certificates in the year 1985. They had only given the instances of three girls. Their cases can be verified on enquiry.

3. It is on the basis of this application that case FIR No. dated 23.3.1988 was registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Jind, for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.

4. The police filed challan in the case in the Court of the learned trial magistrate who after examining the material on record discharged the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 21.3.1989. However, in a revision filed by the State, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra vide his order dated 17.7.1990 set aside the aforesaid order of the learned trial Magistrate and directed him to proceed in accordance with the observations contained therein.

5. Against the order dated 17.7.1990 the present Revision Petition has been filed. This Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings before the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.9.1990.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that prior to the registration of the FIR, the S.D.O. (Civil) Narwana, had deputed Ram Sin