JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-CBI. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “That the instant criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 09.07.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.707/2019 arising out of R.C. No.11(A)/2015-R by Sri A.K. Mishra No.1, learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the application for discharge has been rejected, which is illegal, now the case is pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranhi.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner had issued the genealogical certificate on basis of certain affidavit filed by the Halka Karamchari and one Shri Arvind Tirkey indicating that persons in whose favour the certificate was being issued were the descendants of the recorded khatiyani raiyat, namely, Komal Tirkey. The learned counsel submits that on the basis of the certificate, the co-accused has obtained appointment. He further submits that at the time of issuance of certificate, there cannot be any allegation against the petitioner that he knew that the certificate was to be issued for the purposes of seeking appointment. Accordingly, he submits that there is no question of criminal conspiracy, so far as the petitioner is concerned. He further submits that the action of the petitioner was absolutely bonafide and it is not in dispute that the certificate was issued only on the basis of affidavit. The learned counsel also submits that had the Circle Inspector gone for the purposes of enquiry, he would have enquired from the family members only who would have also the same thing which was mentioned in the affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned trial court while refusing to discharge the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and he submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar Singh had given his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who had supported the allegation made against the petitioner. He also submits that he was proposed to be made an approver. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and he submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar Singh had given his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who had supported the allegation made against the petitioner. He also submits that he was proposed to be made an approver. Learned counsel has also submitted that from the allegation made in the charge-sheet, it is clear that admittedly the petitioner did not process matter regarding issuance of the genealogical certificate through the concerned Circle Inspector and Halka Karamchari which shows his connivance with the co-accused. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference. So far as the specific sections are concerned, that will be taken care of by the learned court below at the stage of framing of charge, if not already framed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation which has been made against the petitioner, this Court finds that at this stage it appears that the genealogical certificate was issued by the petitioner only on the basis of affidavit and it has also come that for the purpose of issuance of genealogical certificate, the same is required to be processed through the Circle Inspector and Halka Karamchari and an enquiry is required to be made, but these steps were allegedly not taken which has resulted in issuance of false genealogical certificate, on the basis of which, the employment was given to the co-accused. This Court finds that at this stage, there is strong circumstance and sufficient material against the petitioner regarding his role as a part of the alleged conspiracy involved in the case in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the certificate was the basis for seeking employment. This Court finds that at this stage, there is strong circumstance and sufficient material against the petitioner regarding his role as a part of the alleged conspiracy involved in the case in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the certificate was the basis for seeking employment. As many as four distinct reasons have been given in the charge-sheet as to why the genealogical certificate issued by the petitioner was false it has also been mentioned in the charge sheet as follows: “During course of investigation, Shri Manish Kumar Singh the then dealing assistant, Circle Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh, was examined and he has also confirmed signatures of said Shri Lalan Kumar appearing on the false genealogical certificate no.318 dated 31/12/2013 and on the concerned dispatch register in which the entry were made against issuance said genealogical certificate no.318 dated 31/12/2013. Shri Manish Kumar Singh has stated that entry of five nos. of Genealogical Certificates i.e. Sl. No.315 to Sl. No.318 “A” all dated 31/12/2013 have been made by him and in the 5th (fifth) column he had written “Vansawali Pramanpatra” but the same was changed by him as “Pariwarik Pramanpatra” as per instruction of said Shri Lalan Kumar. Investigation further disclosed that Shri Lalan Kumar, was competent to issue Genealogical Certificate to the person concerned. But he issued said genealogical certificate vide no.318 dated 31/12/2018 without processing through the concerned circle inspector and Halka Kramchari of Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh. The statement of Shri Manish Kumar Singh was also got recorded U/s.164 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and he has confirmed the aforesaid facts. The aforesaid facts prima facie disclose the commission of offences against Shri Lalan Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh, U/s-467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 12(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance may please be taken by the court of competent jurisdiction and the necessary processes against the accused persons, namely Shri Lalan Kumar, to stand trial in the court, be issued. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance may please be taken by the court of competent jurisdiction and the necessary processes against the accused persons, namely Shri Lalan Kumar, to stand trial in the court, be issued. Shri Manish Kumar Singh, the then Assistant, Circle Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh is proposed to be made an approver in this case to strengthen the prosecution case against accused Shri Lalan Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh, Jharkhand as mentioned above, as he revealed all the facts about the crime committed by accused Lalan Kumar, of this case, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, during his confessional statement recorded U/s 164 of Cr.P.C.” 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below refusing to discharge the petitioner. So far as the specific allegation in connection with each section is concerned, the same will be taken care of by the learned court below in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.