JUDGMENT : 1. In both these petitions, though the Arms licenses are different but the common issues have been raised by the petitioner, so both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a communication received from Special Cell, Delhi Police dated 10.09.1998, FIR No. 8/1999 was registered by the Crime Branch, Jammu against unknown persons on 06.07.1999 with regard to the issuance of large number of fake arms licenses to the non residents of District Jammu between the years 1994 to 1998 from the office of the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, Jammu. Subsequently, vide notification dated 27.12.2001, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DP&T), Government of India, New Delhi with the consent of Government of Jammu and Kashmir conveyed through notification vide SRO 467 dated 10.12.2001, investigation in FIR bearing No. 8/1999 of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, respondent herein for further investigation and the case was re-registered as RC-7(S)/2002/SIU-I/CBI/SCR-1, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, 20 arms licenses were investigated by the respondent. Three Arms licenses bearing Nos. 55/JDM/95 in the name of Ajit Singh, No. 56/JDM/95 in the name of Manjodh Singh and No. 64/JDM/95 in the name of Feroze Khan form the subject matter of the charge sheet No. 11 dated 21.10.2011 whereas two Arms license No. 366/JDM/96 in the name of Bahadhur Singh and No. 511/JDM/96 in the name of Joginder Singh form the subject matter of charge sheet bearing No. 16 dated 21.10.2021. 3. In charge sheet No. 16, the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, (CBI Cases), J&K, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) vide order dated 19.07.2013 framed the charges against the petitioner along with others for commission of offences under sections 120-B read with 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and section 30 of the Arms Act. Similarly in charge sheet No. 11, the learned trial court vide order dated 30.05.2013, has framed the charges against the petitioner and other accused for commission of offences under sections 120-B read with 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and section 30 of the Arms Act. 4. 4. In both the petitions, the petitioner has impugned the criminal proceedings as also the orders dated 30.05.2013 and 19.07.2013 passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which the charges for commission of offences mentioned above have been framed against the petitioner along with others. The petitioner has assailed the criminal proceedings as well as framing of charges primarily on the ground that the charge sheets do not contain the licenses alleged to have been issued by the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted before the trial court. Besides this, issue with regard to the sanction has also been raised. It is further stated that the petitioner was given clean chit by the Crime Branch in FIR bearing No. 8/1999 and was cited as a witness in that FIR and the CBI has unnecessarily arrayed the petitioner as an accused in the instant FIR. 5. The common response has been filed by the respondents in both the petitions in which it has been stated that the petitioner has issued the Arms license dishonestly for extraneous considerations by abusing his official position as a public servant in violation of the provisions of Arms Act and Rules made there-under. It is further stated that the license has been issued on the false and forged documents and on the basis of false Police verification. The allegations those have been levelled against the petitioner have been reproduced in the response. 6. Charge-sheet bearing No.11 and the order dated 30.05.2013 is the subject matter of CRM (C) No. 267/2013: a. As per charge sheet No.11, during the course of investigation with regard to arm license No. 55/JDM/95 issued in the name of Ajit Singh it was found that in the year 1995, Ajit Singh approached one person (name not known) through his friend Mr. Sodhi R/o Chandigarh for obtaining a legally valid arms license in his favour and he was assured to get a legal valid arms license and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the said purpose. Mr. Ajit Singh paid the said amount to the said person. Later on the said person delivered the aforementioned license to Mr. Ajit Singh, having been issued from the office of ADM, Jammu, falsely showing him as a resident of Sant Ahata, Below Gummat, Jammu. Mr. 10,000/- for the said purpose. Mr. Ajit Singh paid the said amount to the said person. Later on the said person delivered the aforementioned license to Mr. Ajit Singh, having been issued from the office of ADM, Jammu, falsely showing him as a resident of Sant Ahata, Below Gummat, Jammu. Mr. Ajit Singh confirmed that he never resided at the aforesaid address and he is a permanent resident of Flat No. 205, Sector 33/A, Chandigarh. During the course of scrutiny of the said arms license it was revealed as under: “Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant, Shri Ajit Singh No proof of residence of the applicant is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License application form for sending the same to the nearest Police Station for verification. Permanent address as mentioned in the Arms License Application Form is different from the address as mentioned in the said Character Certificate. The Arms License Application Form does not bear the photograph of the applicant. Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. Column No. 16 of the Police Verification Report says that recommendation of SHO be supported by Lumberdar/Chowkidar or other respectable persons of the locality, which has not been done in the present case. The Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed by Dalip Singh (A-1) without any official notings.” b. Likewise, during the course of investigation with regard to arms license No. 56/JDM/95 in the name of Manjodh Singh, it was revealed that the Manjodh Singh approached Devender Kumar Dhawan, accused No. 3 for obtaining a legally valid arms license and for that purpose, he paid Rs. 15,000/- to Devender Kumar Dhawan and he was handed over the Arms license issued by ADM Jammu. The course of scrutiny of the said arms license has revealed as under: “Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant, Shri Manjodh Singh. No proof of residence is attached with the Application Form. 15,000/- to Devender Kumar Dhawan and he was handed over the Arms license issued by ADM Jammu. The course of scrutiny of the said arms license has revealed as under: “Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant, Shri Manjodh Singh. No proof of residence is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License Application Form for sending the same to the nearest Police Station for verification. Arms License Application Form does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. The Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed Dalip Singh (A-1) without any official notings.” c. Likewise, during the course of investigation with regard to arms license No. 64/JDM/95 in the name of Sh. Feroz Khan, it was revealed that Feroz Khan approached Devender Kumar Dhawan, accused No. 3 for obtaining a legally valid arms license and for that purpose, he paid Rs. 15,000/- to Devender Kumar Dhawan and thereafter he was handed over Arms license issued by ADM Jammu. During the course of scrutiny of the said arms license it was revealed as under: “Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant. No proof of residence is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License Application Form for sending the same to the nearest Police Station for verification. Arms License Application Form do not bear the photograph of the Applicant. The Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the applicant. Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed by Dalip Singh, without any official notings.” 7. Arms License Application Form do not bear the photograph of the Applicant. The Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the applicant. Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed by Dalip Singh, without any official notings.” 7. Charge-sheet bearing No. 16 and the order dated 19.07.2013 form the subject matter of CRM (C) No. 268/2013: a. As per charge sheet No. 16, during the examination of arms license No. 366/JDM/96 in the name of Sh. Bahadur Singh, it was revealed that during the year, 1996, Bahadur Singh approached Anil Matta, accused No. 1, a private commission agent, for obtaining a legally valid arms license and for that purpose, he paid Rs. 10,000/- to Mr. Anil Matta and he was handed over the Arms License issued by ADM Jammu. During investigation, the scrutiny of the said arms license, revealed as under: “Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant. No proof of residence is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License Application Form, showing that the same sending to the nearest Police Station for verification. Permanent address of the applicant of Sh. Bahadur Singh as mentioned in the Arms License Application Form is different from the address as mentioned in the Police Verification Report. Arms License Application Form does not bear the photograph of the Applicant, Bahadur Singh. Arms License issue register does not bear the photograph of the applicant. Police verification report available in the file is false and forged one. Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed by Dalip Singh, accused No. 3 without any official notings.” b. Similarly, during the investigation of arms license No. 511/JMD/96 in the name of Joginder Singh, it was revealed that in the year, 1996, Joginder Singh approached Anil Matta for obtaining a legally valid arms license and for that purpose, he paid Rs. 5,000/- to him and he was handed over Arms license issued by ADM Jammu. 5,000/- to him and he was handed over Arms license issued by ADM Jammu. Since the said license has been issued by Joginder Sahani, then ADM Jammu and who is no more, so the facts are not required to be reproduced. 8. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with other accused persons in a criminal conspiracy with each other and with unknown persons, cheated the private persons/licensees and thereby dishonestly induced them to part with huge amount of cash, on the false pretext of getting legally valid arms licenses issued in their favour. In furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, they issued arms licenses in their names from the office of District Magistrate, Jammu on the basis of false/forged documents and in violation of the provision of Arms Act and Arms Rules and further by abusing their official position, the petitioner along with other persons had caused wrongful loss to the State Government by not depositing the requisite license fee and causing pecuniary wrongful gain to themselves. All the above mentioned arms licenses were issued to the applicants/licensees who were never residents of Jammu. All these arms licenses were issued on the basis of false and forged and bogus documents including bogus police verification report. 9. Mr. P. N. Raina learned. senior counsel has vehemently argued that the Ld. trial Court has not considered the final report of the investigation, as conducted by the Crime Branch, which the trial court was under legal obligation to consider and further that the very documents those have been alleged to be forged have not been seized and as such no offence for commission of offence of forgery is made out against the petitioner. He further argued that whole prosecution story is that it was Surjit Singh Rana, who had accepted the application form and had further duty to check all the documents and particulars and he did not do so, as such the petitioner cannot be fastened with any liability, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to any conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons. Issue of sanction was not pressed by the petitioner at this stage. 10. Per contra, Ms. Issue of sanction was not pressed by the petitioner at this stage. 10. Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli submits that the investigating officer has proved that the petitioner in conspiracy with other accused has issued the licences in question, on the basis of false and forged documents in contravention of the provisions of Arms Act. She further argued that the petitioner was under obligation to ensure that all the necessary requirements are fulfilled but the petitioner for ulterior purpose, issued licenses without the compliance of the mandatory requirements for issuance of the arms license. Ms Kohli further argued that all the licensees, to whom the fake licenses were issued have categorically stated that they are not the residents of Jammu as has been mentioned in the records of the office of Additional District Magistrate Jammu. 11. Heard and perused the record. 12. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that the Ld. trial Court has not considered the final investigation report of the crime Branch, which the trial court was under legal obligation to do so. From the record it is evident that initially FIR 08/99 was registered by the Crime Branch Jammu on 06.07.99 and later on investigation was entrusted to CBI and the case was re-registered. This Court has perused the special report prepared by the Crime Branch and from that report it is not forthcoming that the arms licenses those form subject matter of the charge sheets impugned in these petitions were also investigated in FIR No. 8/1999, of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. Rather the licenses those were investigated in the said FIR were issued by Mr. S.D. Wani, (ADM, Jammu) and M. Y. Beigh (ADM, Jammu) and not by the petitioner. In the instant charge-sheets, the Investigating officer conducted the investigation and after collecting the documentary evidence and recording the statements of the witnesses, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused. There are specific allegations against the petitioner as mentioned above and they are not required to be repeated again and from these allegations it is evident that there is abundant evidence against the petitioner for putting the petitioner to trial. There are specific allegations against the petitioner as mentioned above and they are not required to be repeated again and from these allegations it is evident that there is abundant evidence against the petitioner for putting the petitioner to trial. It is settled law that while considering issue of framing of charge/discharge, the court has to examine the material placed on record by the investigating officer and if on the basis of the material based on record, the court is of the opinion that the necessary ingredients of offence are present, the court can frame the charges against the accused. As rightly observed by the trial court, the court is not required to conduct mini trial for the purpose of forming an opinion. In State of Karnataka v. M. R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 , the Apex Court has held as under: “25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 ], adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) “29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” As such, the first contention raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 13. That the second contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no evidence with regard to the conspiracy as such the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in absence of any such evidence. Needless to say it is always difficult to have direct evidence with regard to the conspiracy hatched by the accused but nonetheless the same can be gathered from the attending circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the mode and manner in which the arms licenses have been issued on the basis of fake, false and forged documents to the persons, who have never been the residents of the Jammu District, itself suggests that the accused persons have acted in tandem with each other. The false and forged documents have been relied upon for the purpose of issuance of arms licenses. The persons to whom the licenses have been allegedly issued have categorically stated that they never resided at the place mentioned in the record pertaining to issuance of arms license. An attempt was made by the learned senior counsel to persuade this Court that it was Surjit Singh Rana, who was under obligation to verify that the procedural formalities were complied with by the applicants and the petitioner had no role in the same. The argument deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the petitioner was the issuing authority of arms license being the Additional District Magistrate and was not supposed to act as rubber stamp only. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his wrongdoings those have been narrated in details as above. So this contention too lacks any force. 14. The argument deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the petitioner was the issuing authority of arms license being the Additional District Magistrate and was not supposed to act as rubber stamp only. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his wrongdoings those have been narrated in details as above. So this contention too lacks any force. 14. That the third contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for commission of offence of forgery as the original licenses allegedly issued in favour of the licensees have not been seized. It requires to be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that forged licenses have been issued, rather it is the positive case of the prosecution that these arms licenses were issued on the basis of false and forged as well as bogus documents including bogus police verification report. All the licensees have admitted that they were handed over the licenses in which their respective residential addresses were shown to be at Jammu, where they never resided at all. As such, this contention of the petitioner too fails. 15. I have gone through the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and the perusal of the same reveals that the learned trial court has passed the order impugned well within the parameters of law laid down by Apex Court as such there is no illegality in the order impugned. 16. In view of what has been discussed above, both the petitions are found to be without merit, as such, the same are dismissed. The original record, if retained, be sent back forthwith.