10 June 2024


High Court of Delhi

Gaurav Malik Vs. Anti Corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation




Defence of an accused is not to be considered while framing charges

Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) praying that the order passed by Special Judge, dismissing the revision petition filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the learned ACMM be set aside.

The Petitioner was arraigned as an accused in case under Sections 420/471/467/468 read with Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The allegations against him are that he submitted a forged experience certificate allegedly obtained from 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.

Interference under Section 482 of CrPC would be in exceptional circumstances. At the time of framing of charge, as is the settled law, the Trial Court is required to presume the truth in the material produced along with the final report under Section 173 of CrPC. Thus, it is irrelevant how the complaint was filed as investigations are commenced on the FIR. The circular placed will have no relevance to the criminal proceedings.

It cannot be overlooked that, the Petitioner alone is the beneficiary of the forged experience certificate. The brother of the Petitioner was a partner of Krishna Engineering Company. When the other partner, has denied that the certificates bear his signatures, the CBI could have carried out more effective investigations to determine who had signed the documents but the original certificates are unavailable. But the originals being unavailable cannot ensure to the benefit of the Petitioner as the consistent procedure at the time of verification of documents, at the time of appointment, is to return all original documents. Despite notice under Section 91 of CrPC, the Petitioner failed to produce the documents.

As held by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, the defence of an accused is not to be considered while framing charge. In the present case, the Petitioner is alleged to have furnished a fabricated document to get employment and now is unable to produce the original. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Charge Framing Legality

Share :