IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26021 of 2009 MADAN MOHAN PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Yugal Kishore Singh, village Badalpura, PS Matihani, District Begusarai. Versus SUPER. OF POLICE THRU.CBI 2 15.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application is directed against the order, dated 13.5.2009 by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 465, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was a Stenographer working in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai from April 1974 to July 1974. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had forwarded the mark sheet and other documents of one Yogendra Paswan to S.K. High School, Naya Gaon, Samastipur for verification. It is alleged that this letter was sent to a wrong school. It ought to have been sent to Khagaria for verification where the said Yogendra Paswan was working as a teacher. It is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner in connivance with Yogendera Paswan and the main accused in this case is responsible for appointing aforesaid Yogendra Paswan on the post of teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet is based on the confessional statement made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is stated that Farzi appointment letter was issued by one Yogendra Paswan, son of 2 Bhuneshwar Paswan on payment of Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted that Ram Bilas Paswan @ Yogendra Paswan had not named the petitioner in the statement made under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as such no case is made out against this petitioner for having connived in issuing the Farzi and forged appointment letter. On the basis of the statements made under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. this court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of conspiracy or not. These facts necessarily would have to be thrashed out in a full-fledged trial and as such this court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)