CRLREV/178/2025 of MD.SABIR KHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 9 September 2026

ORDER

09.09.2026

06.

1. Heard Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 17th January, 2025 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.410 of 2023 by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar and to quash the criminal proceeding on the grounds stated therein.

3. Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the case laws pleaded on record, submits that the petitioner did not have intention to commit the offences. The further submission is that the document in question alleged to be a product of fraud is having no nexus with the employment and therefore, the learned court below could not have declined discharge in passing the impugned order at Annexure-9 rejecting an application moved by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned decision is liable to be interfered with.

4. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State would submit that production of Employment Exchange Certificate is one of the criteria while applying for the post and it had been submitted by the petitioner and found to be fake having no validity as on the date of application submitted along with other documents and, therefore, the FIR was lodged as per Annexure-1 and it led to filing of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-5. The submission is that the petitioner when having not fulfilled one of the criteria but in order to make himself eligible submitted a forged document, it has resulted in the lodging of the FIR for having committed the alleged offences and therefore, the learned court below did not err in passing the impugned order dated 17th January, 2025 vide Annexure-9.

5. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any such document from the Employment Exchange is having no nexus so as to allege that the petitioner was having the intention to receive wrongful gain and there is also absence of mens rea necessary to establish that the alleged offences, particularly, one under Sections 468 and 471 IPC to have been committed.

6. In course of hearing, apart from the case laws referred to, Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel cites a decision of the Apex Court in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893 to submit that the petitioner is entitled to discharge. On a reading of the decision (supra), it is made to understand that the accused therein had allegedly manufactured a fake document but in absence of any mens rea which is sine qua non to attract an offence under Section 468 IPC, the Apex Court held that there was no wrongful gain or loss as a result, hence, no offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC to have been prima facie made out. On a further reading, it is made to understand that Fire NOC was held to be not necessary for obtaining recognition and it is allegedly used and held to have committed no offences as it did not induce the Education Department to grant such recognition. But, the facts of the above decision are distinguishable to the present case, wherein, in response to an advertisement, the petitioner claiming himself to be eligible for such employment fulfilling the criteria produced the fake Employment Exchange Certificate and it was detected at the time of document verification and ultimately, led to the lodging of the FIR. This Court, with due respect, is unable to subscribe to the view of Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel that the petitioner is not to be fixed with any criminal liability. Rather, considering the FIR at Annexure-1 and the chargesheet filed thereafter as per Annexure-5, the conclusion of the Court is that the petitioner did submit the Employment Exchange Certificate primarily to receive employment as a Constable after selection. Indeed, the petitioner was selected and was called upon to join with the submission of original documents for the purpose of verification and at that stage, the production of fake Employment Exchange Certificate was detected. So, therefore, the claim that the petitioner did not have intention to cheat or to commit any such other offence with dishonest intention to wrongful gain to self or loss to anyone else is liable to be rejected for the reason that the production of Employment Exchange Certificate, a fake one, was with a primary intention to get an employment which he almost managed to accomplish. The other decisions cited and referred to by Mr. Zafrulla, learned counsel for the petitioner pleading on record and relied on in course of hearing is not to render any assistance to him either. So, in the ultimate analysis, this Court concludes that the learned court below considering the chargesheet at Annexure-5 along with all other connected materials filed therewith did not commit any serious error in declining to discharge the petitioner and in passing the impugned order dated 17th January, 2025 at Annexure-9 and therefore, it calls for no interference.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the revision stands dismissed.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Alok Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:20:50 Signature Not Verified