JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 25.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby charges for offences under Section 420, 467 and 471 RPC have been framed against him. 2. It appears that after investigation of FIR No.22/2016 registered with Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, a charge sheet for offences under Section 420, 467 and 471 RPC came to be filed by the respondents before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court). It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 05.03.2016, a written complaint was lodged by Manager, JKSFC, Srinagar, before the respondent Police Station, alleging therein that the Corporation has received a complaint that the petitioner, who was working as a Manager in JKSFC Camp office Durga Nag, Srinagar, has managed his appointment on the basis of fake date of birth certificate. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered and the investigation was set into motion. After investigation of the case, it was found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 1st February, 1955 but the same had been forged by the petitioner to make it as 1st of February ,1957 so as to remain in service for extra two years. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency, passed a detailed order dated 25.08.2018 and came to the conclusion that prima facie offences under Section 420, 467 and 471 RPC are made out against the petitioner and, accordingly, the charges were framed against him. 3. The petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without appreciating the material on record. It is contended that the petitioner has never tampered with or fabricated the service record and he has not produced fake date of birth certificate before his employer. According to the petitioner, whatever is his actual date of birth, the same was projected by him before his employer and if at all any tampering has been done in his service record which remains in the custody of his employer, he cannot be held responsible for the same. According to the petitioner, whatever is his actual date of birth, the same was projected by him before his employer and if at all any tampering has been done in his service record which remains in the custody of his employer, he cannot be held responsible for the same. It has been contended that neither the service book nor the photocopy of the date of birth certificate alleged to have been produced by the petitioner, have been sent to the FSL for ascertaining the true facts. According to the petitioner he was given extension in service and because of this he remained in service for two years beyond his age of superannuation and not because of producing fake date of birth certificate. It is also contended that the Managing Director of the Corporation was inimical to the petitioner and because of his malafides towards him, the instant prosecution has been launched. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned order and the trial court record. 4. Sections 268 and 269 of the J&K Cr. P. C, which is applicable to the instant case, relate to discharge/framing of charge in a Sessions case. A conjoint reading of these two provisions reveals that if a Sessions Judge, upon consideration of record of the case and after hearing the parties, is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he has to be discharged whereas if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the order of charge has to follow. 5. It is a well-settled law that at the stage of charge/discharge, the trial court is not expected to deeply analyze the material on record and to sift and weigh the material so as to conclude whether the available material is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged in the charge sheet. The Court has only to see whether the accused can be put on trial. The Court has to assess and evaluate the material on record with a view to find out if the said material discloses existence of the ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused. The Court has only to see whether the accused can be put on trial. The Court has to assess and evaluate the material on record with a view to find out if the said material discloses existence of the ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused. At the same time the Court has not to act as a post office and accept whatever has been opined by the investigating agency in the charge sheet filed by it. The Court is expected to apply its own mind to the material available on record and come to a tentative finding as to whether any offence is made out against the accused. 6. In the light of aforesaid legal position, let us now consider the material on record. As already noted, the allegation against the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 1st of February, 1955 whereas the same has been forged as 1st February, 1957. The investigating agency has, during investigation of the case, seized the service record of the petitioner. As per this service record, the petitioner is alleged to have produced a typed attested copy of his matriculation examination certificate in which his date of birth is shown as 1st of February, 1957. When this typed attested copy was sent for verification to the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of Secondary School Education, the same was found to be fake and it was found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 1st of February, 1955 as per the record of the Board. 7. The petitioner claims that he had never produced the typed attested photocopy of the certificate and that his original date of birth certificate has been lost during the devastating floods of the year 2014. The question whether the petitioner had actually produced typed attested copy of the date of birth certificate before his employer or whether he had produced any other certificate before his employer is a matter of trial. 8. One thing is clear that the petitioner has served with his employer up to the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of his date of birth as 1st of February, 1957. 8. One thing is clear that the petitioner has served with his employer up to the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of his date of birth as 1st of February, 1957. According to the petitioner, he has overstayed for two years under the orders of extension granted by his employer but there is nothing on record to suggest so nor has the petitioner placed any material on record to support this assertion. The petitioner is not disputing that his actual date of birth is 1st of February, 1955 and it also not in dispute that he has remained in service for extra two years. All these facts raise a grave suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the forgery of his service record relating to his date of birth. Thus, the learned trial court was fully justified in putting the petitioner to trial by framing charge against him. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.