* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Rev. P. No.564 of 2004 Reserved on: 11.01.2008 % Date of decision:18.01.2008 MR. SUNIL MOHAN ...PETITIONER Through: Mr. M.R. Vij, Advocate for the Petitioner with Petitioner in person. Versus THE STATE Through its SECRETARY ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. A complaint was made on 30.6.1993 by the Section Officer, Ministry of Labour on account of the forged bank guarantee No.93/93 dated 5.3.1993 for Rs.1.00 lakh being submitted on behalf of M/s. First Flight International. In pursuance to the complaint FIR No.260/93 was registered on 24.7.1993 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/511 IPC against one Mohammad Yunus. The investigation further revealed that one Mr. Surender Kumar Bagga had connived with the said Mohammad Yunus and the petitioner and some other unknown persons to hatch a conspiracy to cheat the Ministry of Labour by submitting forged Crl. Rev. P. No.564 of 2004 Page No.1 of 4 documents in order to obtain a registration as a recruiting agent under the Immigration Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). M/s. First Flight International was shown as a sole proprietorship concern of Mohammad Yunus and the bank guarantee in question was submitted to the Ministry of Labour. 2. The case against the petitioner is that the public hearings had been attended by him on behalf of Mohammad Yunus and Form No.11 was also filed by the petitioner in the capacity of the Manager of the said firm. Two of the certificates filed along with the application were also found to be forged. Certain other documents were also found to be forged. The CFSL report also found against the petitioner. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that no revenue loss was caused as Mohammad Yunus was never issued a registration certificate. Mohammad Yunus has still not been located and an inquiry is pending but charges have been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the charges being so framed in terms of the order dated 5.7.2004. 4. Learned counsels for the parties were heard at length. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been assisting in locating Mohammad Yunus and giving necessary information. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner was a small fry and the business was being run by Mohammad Yunus, the details of whom have been given by the petitioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The Crl. Rev. P. No.564 of 2004 Page No.2 of 4 documents were furnished as handed over by Mohammad Yunus. 6. The learned MM has appreciated the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner while passing the impugned order and has taken note of various judgements of the Apex Court on the principles to be kept in mind while framing of charges. Thus, where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against accused then charges ought to be framed. The trial court is not to act as a mere post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but at the same time not required to make a roving inquiry into the pros & cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. 7. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit stating that Mohammad Yunus had submitted an application for withdrawal of the application for grant of registration and has left for Saudi Arabia thereafter. It is thus pleaded that there is no room for further action against the petitioner but the Ministry of Labour has not acted on the letter of withdrawal. A plea is also sought to be raised that since there is specific provision of offence and penalties under the said Act, the FIR under the provisions of Indian Penal Code could not have been registered. The further additional submissions were filed on the aspect of the concessions recorded of the counsel for accused No.2, conceding the charges. In this behalf the additional affidavit affirmed on 17.7.2007 states that the petitioner was watching the proceedings and the counsel for Crl. Rev. P. No.564 of 2004 Page No.3 of 4 the respondent has not conceded the charge on behalf of the petitioner. 8. On appreciation of the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the plea advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present case is not one where the registration took place under the said Act and thereafter some offence took place under the said Act. The offences occurred in respect of submission of forged documents to obtain registration as a recruiting agency and it is for the said offences that the petitioner has been charged. The petitioner is the person who appeared on behalf of the sole proprietor and submitted the documents and would thus deemed to have knowledge about what he was submitting. The relevant form was also signed by the petitioner. It was never the case of the petitioner that any application was moved to correct the trial court record on account of the fact that any wrong concession has been recorded therein. 9. The function of the trial court at this stage is to sift evidence and that task has been carried out by the trial court and there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner. 10.There is no merit in the petition. 11.Dismissed. JANUARY 18, 2008 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. b'nesh Crl. Rev. P. No.564 of 2004 Page No.4 of 4