IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.30983 of 2008 UMESH CHOUDHARY, son of Sri Deoki Choudhary, resident of Village- Raipura (Kewlatar), P.O.-Fatuha, P.S. Fatuha, Distt.- Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THRU. C.B.I. ----------- 9/ 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the C.B.I. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 28.11.2005, whereby cognizance under Section 120 (B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken in Special Case no. 12 of 2004 by Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna. The informant in its report to the C.B.I. on 08.03.2004 alleged that B. Hansda, Senior Accounts Officer, Nawal Kishore, A.A.O. and P.K. Singh, Dealing Assistant all from PGMT, BSNL, Patna while working during 2001-03 entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Bela Enterprises, Patna, Patliputra Telecom Engineers, Patna, Singh & Sons, Patna, Sunny Telecom, Buddha Plaza, Patna, R.B. Enterprises, Patna and other unknown persons causing loss to the Corporation. It is alleged that the said private firms fraudulently and dishonestly presented the certain fake bills, forging the signature of the employees, causing loss to the tune of Rs. 9, 96, 339/- to the Telecom Department. The petitioner submits that he was neither named in the First Information Report, nor involved in any manner with the alleged offence. He further submits that only on 13.05.2003, the petitioner - 2 - was transferred to the post of SDE (G), Bikram in place of his predecessor Sri S.S. Mallik, who was transferred from Bikram to Hilsa. It would appear from Annexure-2, the order of posting that petitioner was relieved on 19.05.2003 to join as SDE, Bikram. Learned counsel further submits that in fact he joined as SDE, Bikram on 02.06.2003. However, the charge of the office was not handed over to him and in the mean time on 18.06.2003, a modified order of transfer was issued transferring him from Bikram to Under Area Manager (R) PT Patna. Furthermore, only one Bill no. 280, dated 02.06.2003 for an amount of Rs. 1,51,127/- has been tagged with the name of petitioner in favour of M/s Singh & Sons. Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. alleges that the Bill was processed and signed as SDE (G) Bikram. The allegation itself in the F.I.R. is that the signature on the Bill is forged. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, a Bench of this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide Annexure-6, by order dated 16.01.2006, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 234 of 2006. Petitioner submits that he neither processed the file nor signed it. Even charge was not handed over to him. The F.I.R. too states that the signature has been forged. Counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the petitioner, the then SDE (G) Bikram during the year 2001-03 knowing fully that the said Bill of M/s Singh and Sons was fake, processed the same and put his signature. The C.B.I. in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit admits that the only one fake Bill, namely Bill no. 280 dated 02.06.2003 was - 3 - processed by petitioner. The main crux of the argument of C.B.I. is that the bill no. 280 dated 02.06.2003 was processed during the tenure of this petitioner. Furthermore, at the time of cognizance this Court will not look into the defence of the accused persons nor the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court will not weigh whether evidence is adequate for the purpose of conviction. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has relied upon decisions in the case of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs. Roshan Lal Agrawal & Ors reported in (2003) 4 SCC 139 and State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The accusation against the petitioner is that while officiating as SDE(G), Bikram, he processed one fake bill no. 280 dated 02.06.2003 for an amount of Rs. 1,51,127/- The petitioner was transferred to the said post on 13.05.2003 and he was relieved only on 19.05.2009 for giving his joining there. The petitioner’s case is that he joined the office on 02.06.2003, but charge was not handed to him. It further appears from Annexure-2 that on 18.06.2003 petitioner’s transfer was modified and he was shifted to another place. The charge-sheet states that petitioner knowing well that the said bill of M/s Singh and Sons was forged and fabricated, still processed it with his signature. This Court by order dated 18.03.2010 asked the C.B.I. to file counter affidavit annexing expert opinion regarding tallying the signature of the petitioner vis-à-vis signature on the forged - 4 - bill. The signature on the forged bill is of the petitioner or is of some one else could be well considered at a subsequent stage. In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with observation that petitioner may be at liberty to take all these points including the aspect whether the signature of the petitioner tallies with the signature on the alleged forged bill no. 280 dated 02.06.2003 or not at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)