In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the supplementary statement dated 24.03.05 of complainant wherein he identified accused Sanjeev Sawhney to be the person who was found sitting in the office of accused Vipin Sharma and was introduced as senior officer of Canada Embassy by accused Vipin Sharma who further told the complainant that visa shall be arranged for him by accused Sanjeev Sawhney.Not only this, there is another statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Sh.Rakesh Sunjea who has claimed that accused Sanjeev Sawhney was previously working in Thomas Cook and subsequently he shifted to Paul Merchant.He used to visit the office of accused Sanjeev Sawhney.During those visits, he came to know that accused Vipin Sharma also used to visit him and accused Sanjeev Sawhney had arranged some visa of France country for Vipin Sharma against some payment.It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that a sum of `1,00,000/- was found to have been deposited on 06.02.2004 at Paul Merchant Office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the said amount was subsequently collected by Sanjeev Sawhney on 09.02.04 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant."In the case FIR No.45/2015 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act PS Special Cell, charge-sheet was filed against four accused persons, namely, Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney.After hearing the parties on the point of charge, vide order dated 30 th May, 2013, learned CMM discharged all the accused persons in respect of offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.For the remaining offences, the accused were ordered to be charged for the following reasons:-Never the less, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence available on record which raise grave suspicion against accused persons namely Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney in respect of offence u/s Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 7 474/120-B IPC as pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them, some of them are prima facie shown to have been found in possession of counterfeit blank visa of British High Commission or fake visa stickers of embassy of Czech Republic with requisite knowledge of same being forged and the accused were intending to use the same as genuine documents.Counterfeit blank visa and fake visa stickers are documents purported to be issued by British High Commission and by Embassy of Czech Republic.Hence, prima facie case is made out against the aforesaid accused persons in respect of offences u/s 474/120-B IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 73. Accused Sanjeev Sawhney (respondent herein) preferred a revision petition No.41/2013 impugning the order on charge.The learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 15th October, 2015 discharged him.Feeling aggrieved by the order on discharge now the State is in revision with a prayer to set aside the order passed by learned ASJ and direct the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney to face trial in the above noted case.5. Heard.On behalf of the State it has been submitted that material on record was prima facie sufficient to charge the respondent herein for committing the offences.Hence the impugned order may be set aside.On behalf of the respondent, Mr.Sahil Malik, Advocate while supporting the order passed by learned ASJ, submitted that the belated Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7 statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the complainant was nothing but an afterthought and being inadmissible in evidence, could not have formed basis to charge the respondent herein.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7I have perused the chargesheet and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. annexed with the revision petition filed by the State.After hearing all the accused persons on charge, learned CMM, Central District dealt with the accusations against the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney in para No.21 of the order on charge as under:-Thereafter, learned CMM has dealt with the accusations against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC and formed an opinion that the simple allegations about recovery of blank Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7 visa and fake visa stickers from the possession of Co-accused Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam and Bhupinder Singh was not sufficient to charge them for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7The respondent herein Sanjeev Sawhney impugned the order on charge before the learned ASJ.The revision petition has been allowed by the learned ASJ mainly for the following reasons:-Apart from his identification by the complainant, the prosecution has also collected evidence to establish that co-accused Vipin Sharma made part of payment to Sanjeev Sawhney through office of Paul Merchant at Chandigarh.This led to seizure of cash book, day book, ledger and other relevant documents of Chandigarh & Delhi office of Paul Merchant were collected.The investigating agency on scrutiny of documents noticed that an Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7 amount of ` one lakh was deposited on 6th February, 2004 at Paul Merchant office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the same amount was collected by accused Sanjeev Sawhney on 9th February, 2004 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties, as prayed.

Cited provisions: Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code