IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20524 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. ----------- 3 1.7.2008 Heard the petitioner. The petitioner Arvind Kumar appears in person in this case. He has filed an application under Section 342 (3A) of the Cr.P.C., in the Court below alleging therein that the opposite party, the Special P.P. (Vigilance) and Investigating authorities have produced forged and fabricated documents to show that he is guilty of offence under Section 7, 13(1B) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is facing trial for the said offences. In his application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it has been alleged by the petitioner that the entire trap case against him and the seizure list and the manner in which the investigation has been done has been created to prove his guilt. The petitioner submits that he has not signed over the seizure list nor has he put his thumb impression on the seizure list and the entire material has been fabricated by the prosecution. The said case was registered and notices were issued to the vigilance department. At present the trial is still in progress and the fact whether the seizure list is forged or fabricated by the prosecution is yet to be proved during the trial. The allegations against the petitioner are also to be proved by the prosecution and the petitioner shall have full opportunity to defend himself and to demonstrate to the court that the documentary evidences before the Court are forged and fabricated. - 2 - In such circumstance, the question of lodging a case under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code would only arise after the court comes to a finding that the documents produced during the proceeding in a Court are forged and fabricated. At this stage, this Court finds no reason to exercise its original jurisdiction and interfere with the proceedings of the Court below. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan,J.)