N.B.Asthana, J. - (1.) The revisionist who is a Lecturer in J.P. Mehta Inter College, Nagar Nigam, Varanasai was summoned upon a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 Swami Charan for the offence punishable under Sections 218, 466, 467, 461 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The charge against him, in brief, was that in collusion with other persons he changed his date of birth from 10.9.68 to 9.9.68 in order to gain seniority over the complainant. The revisionist appeared. The case was fixed for evidence under Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code. Before any evidence under Section 244 could be recorded the revisionist moved an application under Section 245 Criminal Procedure Code stating that the charge against him was groundless and therefore, he should be discharged under Section 245(2) Criminal Procedure Code. It was also contended before the trial Court that upon the same facts a writ petition has been filed in the High Court; that the matter regarding the change of date of joining service is sub-judice of this court and on that account also the complaint is not maintainable. The trial Court was of the opinion that since the case has been fixed for evidence under Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code, it would be proper to record evidence under this section and then to come to the conclusion under Section 245 Criminal Procedure Code as to whether charge should be framed against the revisionist or he should be discharged under Section 245(2) Criminal Procedure Code. The result was that the application was rejected. The accused has now come to this Court in Revision. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record.
(2.) Lengthy arguments were advanced before this Court and a number of documents filed along with the writ petition were placed before the Court and it was argued that from the material on record it cannot be said that the date of joining was at all changed and if it was changed it was changed at the instance of the revisionist or that the revisionist is in any was liable for the change and therefore he should have been discharged by the trial Court. It was also contended in this connection that the revisionist was promoted in the reserved promotion vacancy and as such he did not stand to gain anything by changing the date of joining. The argument is that whether he joined on 10.9.68 or 9.9.68 would not make any difference in so far as his promotion to the next higher post is concerned and, therefore in the normal course he would not have changed the date of joining. It was also contended in this connection that the revisionist himself did not make any cutting, that there is no allegation allegation or evidence that the said cutting if at all must have been made by the Principal who being a public servant was entitled to do so. If the Principal prepared a false document then the Principal is liable and not the revisionist. It was also contended that the document in question cannot be said to be a valuable security and since no case is made out the complaint should be quashed. It was further contended that the complaint was filed after 19 years and that the ground of delay in itself is sufficient to dismiss the complaint. The delay according to the revisionist is fatal. It was also contended that the question of alleged change of date of birth was considered by the higher departmental authorities and nothing was found against the revisionist. It was also contended in this connection that several departmental enquiries took place but nothing adverse was found against the revisionist.
(3.) Simply because writ petition is sub-judice in this court wherein the question of seniority of the revisionist vis-a-vis the complaint is involved, it cannot be said that no offence can be said to have been made out in case it is found that the date of joining of the revisionist has been changed. The copy of the writ petition has not been placed on record. It cannot, therefore, be said whether any allegation regarding the change of date of joining in the writ petition has been made. In any case the matter is still sub-judice of this Court, no final decision has been given and, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence under these sections can be taken cognizance of by the trial court has been made out.;