IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.218 of 2008 BACHU PRASAD SINGH, S/O SRI CHANDRADEO SINGH, R/O VILAGE- MADHOPUR MUSHARWA, POLICE STATION- SAHIYARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ……….PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 03/ 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by Sri P. K Srivastava, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in G. R. No. 93 of 2004, Tr. No. 948 of 2007 ( State-vs-Bharat Lal Rai and Ors.) whereby the application dated 03.11.07 seeking discharge under section- 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) has been considered and rejected. A complaint was filed by the complainant in the court which was forwarded to the police for investigation of case and accordingly Sursand, P. S Case No. 21 of 2004 dated 11.03.2004 was instituted against two named accused namely Bharat Lal Rai and Bachu Singh alleging therein that the brother of the informant along with others including co-accused Bharat Lal Rai were applicants for the post of Shiksha Mitra within their Gram Panchayat. Accused Bharat Lal Rai filed marksheet purportedly to have been issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna and a School Leaving Certificate purportedly issued under the signature of Principal, Jagdish Yogendra Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, 2 Madhopur Musharwa. On the strength of aforesaid certificates/documents co -accused Bharat Lal Rai was empanelled in the merit list and was subsequently appointed as Shiksha Mitra. It is the allegation in the complaint/F.I.R that those certificates were forged and fabricated. The investigation commenced whereafter chargesheet appears to have been submitted only against co-accused Bharat Lal Rai, who had manipulated and obtained a forged and fabricated document to support his claim for the post of Shiksha Mitra. Learned court below, however, took cognizance against the aforesaid Bharat Lal Rai as well as the petitioner who was during the relevant time serving as Principal, Jagdish Yogendra Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madhopur Musharwa. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation did not verify from the school about the issuance of alleged School Leaving Certificate by the petitioner. On the contrary, it was found that the certificate was manufactured by the petitioner. Accordingly he was not sent up by the police. At the time of framing of charge, application was filed seeking discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned court below in paragraph 4 of the impugned order has found as under:- “4. From perusal of the case-diary (paras- 42, 43 and 45), it appears that at least this fact has come that co-accused Bharat Lal Rai obtained appointment on the basis of forged certificate issued by Yogendra Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madhopur Musharwa, the petitioner is the 3 principal of said Vidyalaya. The signature of the said forged certificate has not been verified. Hence, at this stage of trial, there is ample material to hold a prima- facie case true against the petitioner Bachu Singh @ Bachu Pd. Singh and there is sufficient material to frame charge against him”. If that is the position, then it is evident that till today the signature of the petitioner on the said forged certificates has not been verified and therefore it cannot be said that there is any legal material against the petitioner. Learned A.P.P on perusal of case diary is not able to submit that during investigation signature of petitioner on the said fake certificate (SLC) was verified and found to be that of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.01.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. Case no. 93 of 2004, Tr. No. 948 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner of the present case shall thus be absolved of the charge (s). It is, however observed, if during trial adequate evidence comes against the petitioner implicating him in the offence, the trial court shall be at liberty to invoke jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code in accordance with law. Application is allowed. Ranjan ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)