HARBHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case in brief is that in the office of District Magistrate, Gurgaon. during the checking of the record of Licence and Passport Branch, it transpired that 19 arms licences were lying entered in the arms register on which signatures of Smt. Indira Goel, HCS, former City Magistrate, Gurgaon were appearing and infact she had not put her signatures on those arms licences and those arms licences were forged. She also wrote letter No. 198 dated 23.3.1998 to the District Magistrate, Gurgaon that she had not signed those licences and her signatures were forged. At the time of issuance of those 19 arms licences, on Shiv Darshan was working as clerk in the Arms Branch and the entire relevant record relating to the issuance of arms licences and others was in his custody. At that time, Shri Harbhagwan Singh was working as Assistant. District Magistrate wrote to the Superintendent of Police that those arms licences appear to have been issued by Harbhagwan Singh Assistant (retired) and Shiv Darshan Singh clerk. With the letter (sic) showing the 19 forged arms licences.

(2.) Through this common order Criminal Misc. Nos. 11747-M of 1999 and 10336-M of 1999 whereby Harbhagwan Singh and Shiv Darshan respectively have approached for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 184 dated 30.3.1999 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, Gurgaon.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for Shri Harbhagwan Singh petitioner that Harbhagwan Singh has nothing to do with the issuance of said licenca 'Shiv Darshan Singh was the concerned clerk dealing with the arms licences till their issuance. He was custodian of all the record relating to the issuance of so-called alleged forged licences. It was further submitted that out of the list of 19 arms licences said to have been forged, some relate to the year 1992 and 1993 when Smt. Indira Goel was not City Magistrate, Gurgaon. It was further submitted that Harbhagwan Singh was transferred to Flood Relief Branch as an Assistant from the Licence and Passport Branch in April, 1994 where he remained posted upto April, 1995. During that period, he had been obtaining leave from time to time. He was again transferred and posted in Licence and Passport Branch vide order dated 11.4.1995. He worked as Assistant in Licence and Passport Branch from April, 1995 to 3.10.1996, when he was compulsorily retired. His compulsorily retirement was set aside by this Court in CWP No. 12684 of 1996 and he was taken back in service on 17.1.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Revenue) with effect from 3.3.1997. It was further submitted that he remained in Licence and Passport Branch for about 18 months from April, 1994 to the year 1997. It was submitted that he had no official connection with most of the alleged forged licences as most of the alleged forged licences pertain to the period when he was not working as an Assistant in Licence and Passport Branch. It was reiterated that Shiv Darshan co-accused was custodian of the records relating to the issuance of licences from 1993 till 1998. It was submitted that Harbhagwan Singh was booked simply because he remained posted as assistant for sometime in the Licence Branch. It was submitted that Shiv Darshan is responsible for forging the signatures of all concerned figuring in the issuance of licences. It was submitted that Shiv Darshan forged signatures of Harbhagwan Singh who was assistant at the relevant time and he forged signatures of Superintendent and that of the City Magistrate. It was submitted that Harbhagwan Singh was roped in because he challenged his compulsory retirement in the High Court.