final order copy is :-(matter in nutshell is that my mother belongs to tribal community of HP and got eduction of 8th,10th from that district but father hails from obc of punjab. my parents gave us a ST certificate in 1983 and i got a job in EPFO on this base. on Enquiry, SDM wrote in 2006 that ST issued wrongly by them in 1983 and ST certificate can not be given to non- ST father's offspring. same view was expressed by DC of the area in a letter in 2007. CBI initiated enquiry after Delhi high court order in some case. CBI made final report u/s 420,471 only saying i used false/forged ST certificte. They got a circular of HP govt of the year 1986 in this regard but did not produce the circular of HP govt and Home Ministry,new delhi of 1975-77 in this regard. they also produced the issuance register of 1983 in which no entry found of my ST certificate. They sent handwriting expert the specimen signature of the then SDM of the year 2010 and not of the year 1983. Expert said no view can be taken on it. SDM has given statement that his signature are not genuine in the certificate but also given statement in trial court that he can not recall the circular of 1975-77 ! Supreme court view inCivil Appeal no. 654 of 2012[2012)3SCC400] is in my favour. Moreover, i used the certificate bonafidely as given by my parents. there is no witness/proof that i used the ST certificate knowing that it was false/forged. Then how can i be charged by section 420,471? mens rea is absent if i am not a part of conspiracy. we have filed a writ petition in HP high court in 2011 which isstill pending.) Now tell me what to do now?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-14030 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.05.2013
Rajinder Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:
Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
After arguing the matter for some time, when this Court was
not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash
the instant case registered against the petitioner, by the C.B.I, vide
impugned FIR (Annexure P-2), containing direct and serious allegations, for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 474, 177 and
468 read with Section 471 IPC, then learned counsel intends to withdraw
the instant petition to enable the petitioner to take/urge all the points
contained in it at the appropriate stage of the trial.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed
for.
May 01, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
