IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51829 of 2008 ------- BINOD KUMAR EKKA, son of late Gabriel Ekka, resident of Pugu Champanagar, P.S. Gumla, District – Gumla, now Jharkhand, presently working as Postal Assistant in Patna Division in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna Division, Patna, Pin – 800004. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH.C.B.I. ----------- 2/ 28.1.2009 Heard. The allegation against the petitioner is that in order to getting an appointment as a Postal Assistant in Patna Division, he produced a forged and fabricated marksheet. The document was sent for verification to the Bihar Intermediate Council and its Senior Superintendent wrote to the CBI disclosing that the document was forged and fabricated having never been issued by the Council. The contention was that section 420 of the Code was not attracted nor the offence under section 468 of the I.P.C. was made out under the facts of this case. The contention was that it could, at best, be a case under section 471 of the I.P.C. and that is bailable. The last contention was that if at all the court comes to a conclusion 2 that offence or offences other than section 471 of the Code were also made out, then in that case, there was no material to connect this petitioner for participation in forging the document. The court could not go into the questions of constitution of offence except for satisfying the quiries made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has not to be treated as a decision of a higher court by a learned magistrate. The simple principle of law on forgery is that if one is going to be benefited out of the forged document or likely to derive the benefit of it, then the presumption is that either he was participating in forging the document or has clear knowledge of the same being forged and fabricated. The petitioner had presented the document and it was ultimately found forged. The petitioner was the only beneficiary who had claimed certain exemption on limits of percentage of marks or for consideration on account of a particular classification socially made. The petitioner could not escape the ultimate presumption as stated above and 3 considering that, the petition is dismissed. However, as soon as the informant of the case Narain Jha is examined on the charge by the learned magistrate, the petitioner above named shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned in R.C. 2 (S)/2008. It has to be made very clear to the learned magistrate that the informant has to be examined as P.W. 1. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )