(PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant herein is original accused No.6 in Charge Sheet, which is filed pursuant to Crime No.33/2018, registered with Nandurbar City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

FACTS :-

2. Respondent No.2 herein was serving as Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad (Z.P.), Nandurbar. It is he who has lodged the above mentioned F.I.R., which reads as under :

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

3. Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar had received a letter from Deputy Secretary, Rural Development on 19/1/2018. It was stated in the letter that, on the basis of a forged order, appointments were given to 31 Special Teachers. Names of those Teachers have been mentioned in the F.I.R. These persons presented false and fabricated Unit Approval, Sanch Approval and Personal Approval along with appointment orders. Names of these 31 Teachers did not figure in the list of 595 Teachers who were to be accommodated. There were 341 such Teachers in Nasik Division. The concerned staff members of the Education department, without verifying the original documents, put up a proposal for appointment of these 31 Teachers. Some of the staff members of the Zilla Parishad were hand in gloves with the officials of the Education Department. Based on such proposal, posting orders were obtained from the C.E.O., Z.P., Nandurbar. An enquiry committee headed by Deputy C.E.O. was appointed in this regard. Based on the said report and on the directions of the C.E.O., the F.I.R. was lodged.

4. The crime was investigated and the charge sheet has been filed. The applicant was at the relevant time Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. He is stated to be a mastermind of the crime in question. He is alleged to have forged and fabricated the orders issued from Mantralaya.

5. Heard. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no shred of material even remotely suggesting the applicant’s involvement in the crime in question. Various appointment orders were issued in compliance with the Government Resolution dated 15/10/2010. The officials based at Nandurbar fabricated and forged the documents. The beneficiaries are not proposed to be prosecuted. Name of the applicant does not figure in the enquiry report and F.I.R. as well. No original appointment orders were ever placed before the C.E.O. nor have those been seized and made part of the charge sheet. The file put up before the C.E.O. contained either photo or scan copies of original documents. Handwriting expert did not give any opinion since original documents were not placed before him. According to learned counsel, the offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant in discharge of his official duties. No sanction for prosecution of the applicant has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel ultimately urged for allowing the application.

6. Respondent No.2 filed his affidavit-in-reply, stating therein the applicant to be the main culprit. He joined hands with the co-accused in fabricating false documents. The learned Addl.P.P. would submit that the applicant was based in Mumbai. He exerted his clout and got himself appointed as a one man committee for surprise inspection and scrutiny of orders lawfully issued by the Government, but tampered at local level. According to him, the applicant and the co-accused who were at the relevant time serving with the Education Department, duped unemployed youths. Hefty amounts were received from them. According to learned Addl.P.P., there is material to proceed against the applicant. He, therefore, urged for rejection of the application.

7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the F.I.R. and the related police papers. There was a scheme, “Integrated Education for Disabled Students”. It was sponsored by the Central Government. The scheme was, however, discontinued by the Central Government. About 595 Special Teachers were serving under the said Scheme along with some attendants. The State Government, by its Government Resolution dated 15/9/2010, decided to accommodate all of them. The Special Teachers were directed to be accommodated in Primary Schools run by local authorities such as Zilla Parishad, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation etc. The subject matter of the present crime pertains to 31 persons who are none of those 595 Teachers to be accommodated in various schools. These 31 persons named in the F.I.R. were given postings by the C.E.O., Z.P., Nandurbar on approval of the proposal in that regard. A complaint in that regard was received. The C.E.O., therefore, appointed a two member committee to enquire into the matter. The Committee was headed by Dy. C.E.O., Z.P., Nandurbar. He submitted his report dated 9/2/2018. The report suggests none of the original documents were ever placed before the C.E.O. The concerned officials ought to have verified the original documents first. A list of 595 Special Teachers to be accommodated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 15/10/2010 was very much available with the office of Director of Education, State of Maharashtra and Deputy Director (Education), Nasik Division. The names of those appointed did not figure in the said list. The officials of the Education Department, beneficiaries and certain staff members of the Zilla Parishad were held responsible. The name of the applicant neither figures in the enquiry report nor in the F.I.R. lodged pursuant thereto.

8. Two letters dated 4/5/2017 and 16/6/2017 allegedly under the signature of the present applicant are said to have been forged and fabricated. Photo copies of both the documents are on record. Vide first letter dated 4/5/2017, 22 persons were directed to be accommodated while the second letter dated 16/6/2017 covers 13 persons. Names of the persons mentioned in both these letters did not figure in the original list of 595 Teachers directed to be accommodated. Admittedly, none of the original documents were ever placed before the C.E.O. It is the case of the prosecution that, photo/ scan copies of all the original documents were used for committing forgery of the documents dated 4/5/2017 and 16/6/2017. During the investigation, specimen signatures of the applicant were obtained. The forged documents along with specimen signature of the applicant were submitted to the handwriting expert for examination and opinion. The expert did not give any opinion for the reason, “these signatures do not provide the characteristics which are essential for strokes and their examination viz. line quality, movement, pen-pressure, conditions of stokes and their combination etc. as it has not been possible express. Any definite opinion as regards their authorship with the signature at Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit S-1 to S-12 and N-1 to N-9 for want of original signatures for the purpose of scientific examination.”

9. The State of Maharashtra/ the Head of the Department with which the applicant was serving at the relevant time, did not initiate any departmental enquiry against the applicant. Meaning thereby the State did not see the applicant’s involvement. Be that as it may. Scrutiny of all the police papers though indicate that the crime in question in fact was committed, there is no shred of material which could be converted into admissible piece of evidence to make the applicant stand trial for the offence/s. It is reiterated that, the original documents under the signature of the applicant were scanned or photo copies thereof were obtained for forging the documents dated 4/5/2017 and 16/6/2017. The statements on record indicate the involvement of some of the coaccused. Nobody, however, speaks against the applicant herein. As such, it is a case of no material to proceed against the applicant. As regards question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, we are not in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. Making a false document or forging the same can never be a part of official duty. Moreover, such question needs to be addressed by the trial Court. We have, therefore, no option but to allow the application. In the result, the application succeeds. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), so far as the present applicant is concerned.

10. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature.