AMAR SARAN,SURENDRA SINGH,J - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Coun­sel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and learned Additional Government Ad­vocate representing the State. A first information report has been lodged by the SP/CBI, EOU, New Delhi, which was registered at RC-712010 (E) 0002, under sections 120-B read with sec­tions 420/467/468/471/477-A/511 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof alleg­ing that the Executives/Directors of M/S S&S Converges Private Limited entered into a criminal conspiracy with the peti­tioner, who was the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, LPRG College Branch, Shyam Park, Sahibabad and un­known officials of New India Assurance Company Limited and others for issue of an ante dated pay order dated 30.7.2009 for Rs. 2,28,036 for issuance of insurance cover, and for causing wrongful loss to New India Assurance Company Limited for Rs. 3.40 Crores against factory and stocks lying therein, which had lapsed on 30.4.2009 be­cause a fire had broken out in the factory premises on 31.7.2009.
(2.) IT was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the peti­tioner being the Branch Manager was only doing his duties and he has simply made out a pay order dated 30.7.2009 on the basis of which the policy was issued on the same day in favour of M/s S&S Converges Pri­vate Limited. There was no basis for the assertion that the pay order or the policy was ante dated. In our view this is a matter for ap­preciation by the investigating agency and the Trial Court as to whether the pay order and policy were ante dated. Prima facie a suspicion does arise as we find that the fire broke out on 31.7.2009 and the accused whose policy has expired on 30.4.2009 suc­ceeded in getting the policy made on 30.7.2009 because of which a liability was cast on the New India Assurance Company to the tune of Rs. 3.40 Crores. We also can­not loose sight of the fact that in the present case the FIR was lodged by an officer of the rank of SP, CBI, EOU, New Delhi and that he would have no good reason to make these allegations unless there was prima facie material for indicting the petitioner and other co-accused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the policy which lapsed on 30.4.2009 and to the re­newed policy, which was issued on 31.7.2009 at 00 hour on 31.7.2009.
(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY , the previous policy number, which is mentioned on the so-called new policy, which was issued on 31.7.2009 does not tally with the number in the new policy, which has been annexed to this petition. In any case, it is not for this Court to look at the defence documents. Moreover, from the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cogni­zable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner. There is no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.;