ARJUN DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR

The basic facts constituting the FIR emerged from the written report dated 11th September 2004 of the Education Extension Officer, Lakhisarai addressed to the Officer In-charge, Chanan Police Station wherein it was alleged that under order dated 8th April 2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhisarai an enquiry was conducted by the District Superintendent of Education cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai under his letter No. 2072 dated 18th August 2004 regarding the Teaching experience certificate of the petitioner who was a teacher in Ram Nagar Primary High School, and the Education Training Certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification to the Principal of the primary Teachers Training College, Purabsarai, Munger from where the petitioner was shown to have completed his teachers training and 2 that the Principal under his Letter No. 16 dated 15th March 2004 reported that the teachers training certificate of the petitioner was forged and fabricated and that the petitioner has obtained his appointment on the basis of that forged certificate. Since the petitioner was found to have obtained his appointment on the basis of the forged teachers training certificate, FIR for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 and 409 IPC was instituted under Lakhisarai P.S.Case No. 299 dated 7th October 2004. After the FIR, investigation was taken and on completion of the same charge-sheet was submitted. Considering the materials in case diary, the learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai vide his impugned order dated 9th March 2005 has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and he has been summoned to stand trial. Teachers training was a necessary qualification appointment to the post of teacher. After filing of this application, the case diary was called and the same has been received. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s teacher’s training certificate was not forged. It was submitted that the certificate was issued from the Bihar School Examination Board. In this context, he relied on annexure-2 which is a report granted by the Additional Secretary Bihar School Examination Board, wherein it is reported that in the records of the Board, petitioner’s name is mentioned with his marks obtained in the examination and he is shown to have passed in 3rd Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner asked that the petitioner’s name is mentioned in the record of Examination 3 Board and he was granted a certificate from the Board. Learned A.P.P. referred to Para-9 of the case diary wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner’s Teachers Training Certificate was sent for verification to the Principal of the Teachers Training College, Munger from where he is shown to have passed the teachers training as per the certificate. It is further mentioned in Para-9 that the Principal submitted his enquiry report wherein it was reported that the teachers training certificate of the petitioner was forged. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Para-4 of the case diary wherein the report of the Principal of the Teachers Training College, Munger is mentioned as it was sent under Letter No.16 dated 15th March 2004. In this Letter No. 16, the Principal has mentioned that the name of the petitioner Arjun Das is nowhere mentioned in the Admission Register of the College for the year 1974- 76 during which period he is shown to have obtained training and, thus, according to the report, the petitioner had not obtained any training from that College. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner obtained his appointment on the basis of his teachers training certificate showing that he had obtained training from the Primary Teachers Training College, Munger but, in fact, he had not obtained any such training from that College. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submitted that since the petitioner had not obtained any training, his certificate showing him to have obtained training from that college was a forged one. There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned A.P.P. 4 Learned A.P.P. referred to further materials in Para-9 and he pointed out that after the receipt of report of Principal of the Teachers Training College, the petitioner was given notice twice under Memo No. 848 dated 23rd March 2004 and Memo No. 963 dated 8th April 2004 asking him to show cause in the matter, but he did not submit any show cause reply. This was also indicative of the fact that the petitioner had nothing to say against the report of the Principal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certificate was issued from the Board and on the basis of the same, he had obtained appointment. No doubt, certificate might have been issued from the Board, but it was issued without any training obtained by the petitioner as shown in the certificate and, therefore, certificate was definitely a forged paper. Petitioner never produced any material to show that he had obtained any training as was shown under certificate and on the basis of which he had obtained employment . In such view of the matters, there was material against the petitioner and the learned S.D.J.M. was justified in taking cognizance of the offences. Relying on some facts as mentioned in Para-9 of the case diary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the enquiry upon his certificate, his pay was stopped from March 2002 to February 2004 for which the petitioner had filed application before this High court and on the orders of this High Court, payment was given to the petitioner. May be the petitioner was directed to be paid for the period he had worked, but there is nothing to show that any such dispute was involved under any case filed before the court in which direction for payment of 5 salary was ordered. Thus hearing, I find that there is material prima facie to show that the petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate. In such view of the matters, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence I find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad, J )