ORDER : The petitioner is the 2 nd accused in VC No.2/2018/PTA of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta. In the said crime, one Dr.Jeeve Justus, Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Hospital, Adoor was the accused. The allegation was that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the de facto complainant for the knee surgery of her son. VACB laid a trap. At about 4.20 p.m. on 30.06.2018 Dr.Jeeve Justus accepted the bribe, and the tainted notes were recovered from his possession. After due investigation, the VACB submitted Annexure-3 final report. The recommendation in the report was to drop the proceedings against the accused . In the said report, it was stated that the ward duty chart maintained in the General Hospital, Adoor on the relevant day was manipulated by the petitioner, who was the Resident Medical Officer (RMO), with the intention to screen the offence committed by Dr.Jeeve Justus. He was to be on duty from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. But he remained absent from the hospital unauthorisedly. To justify his absence, entries were made in the duty chart to appear that two other doctors were on duty. The Special Judge after considering the said report, as per Annexure-1 order, directed further investigation in the matter. Further, the learned Special Judge emphasised the need to have an investigation into the misdeeds said to have been done by the RMO, who is the petitioner. The observations in that regard in Annexure-1 are the following: “11. That apart, there are enough materials to show that RMO, Dr.Nishad and Dr.Dhanya made corrections in the copy of ward duty register, with the intention of screening Dr.Jeeve Justus from criminal prosecution and thereby causing destruction of evidence. Prima-facie materials are there to invoke a charge u/s.201 and 203 IPC against them. In fact investigation has to be made regarding the commission of offences under Sec 465 and 466 of IPC , as well. But these aspects were not considered the Investigating officer. The Investigating Officer and the Vigilance Director seems to be dancing to the tune of someone behind the curtain. Hence the refer report submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB 2/18/PTA is returned. The Investigating officer shall conduct further investigation into the matter and file final report in this case, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 60 days from today.? 2. Hence the refer report submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB 2/18/PTA is returned. The Investigating officer shall conduct further investigation into the matter and file final report in this case, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 60 days from today.? 2. As a sequel to the said order, the petitioner was implicated as the 2 nd accused in the crime. It appears that the investigating agency moved the Special Court for compelling the petitioner to furnish his standard writings obviously, for the purpose of examination by a handwriting expert. On the basis of the request in that regard made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB in C.M.P.No.1656 of 2022 the learned Special Judge issued summons to the petitioner as per Annexure-4. Subsequently, the Special Judge passed Annexure-5 order dated 17.12.2022, which reads as follows; “A2 has no objection in collecting specimens of his handwriting. A2 is already on bail. Investigating Officer is directed to record the formal arrest of A2 and obtain his standard writing as provided in Section 311A, Cr.P.C., within 2 weeks from today.? The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C. invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) seeking to set aside Annexures 1, 4 and 5 orders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant part of the final report, Annexure-3, is extracted below: “The investigation of the case revealed that an official misconduct was committed by W15 in Ext.L1. On 30-06-2018 accused was on Ward MO duty from 08.00AM to 08.00PM. He reached at his private practice room around 4 pm and accepted the bribe money from W1 around 4.20 PM. When he accepted the trap money he is on official duty at Hospital. As per the rule if a duty doctor relieve before his duty time for any reason he should entrust the duty to another doctor with the knowledge of RMO or Superintendent. The Exts. D2, D4 & D5 proves that the accused leave the hospital without proper channel. He was trapped from the private practice room at the time of his official duty at hospital. During this time the original duty chart (Ext.D4) was seized by vigilance and handed over a copy of the same to the Hospital Superintendent. The custodian of duty chart is RMO- Dr.Nishad. He was trapped from the private practice room at the time of his official duty at hospital. During this time the original duty chart (Ext.D4) was seized by vigilance and handed over a copy of the same to the Hospital Superintendent. The custodian of duty chart is RMO- Dr.Nishad. So the Superintendent (W14) handed over the copy to RMO by affixing her signature. After that the RMO included the name of Dr.Dhanya -03 to 06 PM after that 6 to 8 PM Dr.Mini in the photocopy of duty chart without the knowledge of W14. In the original duty chart the name of Dr.Dhanya & Dr.Mini is not included. But W-15 wrote the name of Dr.Dhanya & Dr.Mini in the copy of duty list on 01- 07-2018. During the first stage of investigation, W18 deposed that she performed Ward Medical Officer duty from 03.00PM to 06.00PM on 30-06-2018 instead of the accused. CDR details of W18 on 30-06-2018 revealed that she was not on duty at that time. The photocopy of the fabricated duty list was produced before the Hon'ble Vigilance Court, Thiruvananthapuram for ensuring the bail at the time of considering the bail application of the accused. There is no application received at the Office of the Hospital from any end for copy of duty list for the month of June 2018. So, it is revealed that such a type of fabricated documents forged by W15 with the intention to help his colleague and mislead the Hon'ble Court. The RMO fully aware about the importance of documents seized by the Vigilance and have responsibility to keep the same in unmissable personal custody. Instead of that W15 willfully forged the duty list and thereby lead same to produce before the Hon'ble Court. This act of W15 amounts to grave official misconduct.” 5. On the basis of the aforementioned findings of the investigating officer, the learned Special Judge observed that the act of the petitioner as RMO of General Hospital, Adoor amounted to offences punishable under Sections 201 , 203 , 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and investigation into those offences was also necessary. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even accepting that the duty chart was modified as alleged, that would not amount to any of the offences as observed by the learned Special Judge. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even accepting that the duty chart was modified as alleged, that would not amount to any of the offences as observed by the learned Special Judge. The RMO was empowered to assign duty to any of the Doctors under his administrative control and therefore assigning of duty to Dr.Dhanya from 3.00 to 6.00 p.m. and to Dr.Mini from 6.00 to 8.00 p.m., even if it was to justify the absence of Dr.Jeeve Justus during the said period, would not amount to any of the offences, it is urged. 7. The offence alleged against Dr.Jeeve Justus in VC No.2/2018/PTA is one punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). He allegedly received bribe at the room where he does private practice by skipping his duties at the General Hospital, Adoor. To constitute an offence under Section 201 of the IPC , evidence concerning commission of the offence in question must have disappeared or such an act has been done with an intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. A person knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false is an offence punishable under Section 203 of the IPC . Making a fictitious or false entry in the duty chart, with the intention of justifying the absence of Dr.Jeeve Justus from the General Hospital during the relevant time would not in any way amounts to an offence under Section 201 or 203 of the IPC in relation to the offence under the PC Act alleged against Dr.Jeeve Justus. In that view of the matter, the petitioner could not be proceeded against for the offences under Sections 201 and 203 of the IPC in VC No.2/2018/PTA. 8. In order for a person to be convicted for the offences under Sections 465 and 466 of the IPC , it must be established that the forgery as defined in Section 463 of the IPC was committed. Section 463 of the IPC reads: “463. 8. In order for a person to be convicted for the offences under Sections 465 and 466 of the IPC , it must be established that the forgery as defined in Section 463 of the IPC was committed. Section 463 of the IPC reads: “463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” Even if the allegation that the petitioner as RMO modified or varied the day duty chart, that would not come within the purview of the definition of 'forgery' contained in Section 463 of the IPC , especially when it was a prerogative the petitioner could have done in his capacity as the RMO. If that was with a dishonest intention and the consequence is occurrence of any of the things coming within the mischief of Section 463 of the IPC , the position would be different. Therefore, the observation in Annexure-1 that investigation regarding commission of the offence by the petitioner under Sections 465 and 466 of the IPC is also misconceived and untenable in law. 9. In the aforementioned circumstances, I am of the view that the observations in paragraph No.11 of Annexure-1, which has the effect of directing to conduct an investigation into the commission of the offence under Sections 465 and 466 of the IPC by the petitioner, cannot sustain in law and is liable to be set aside. Once the said direction in Annexure-1 order is set aside, Annexures 4 and 5 orders can have no legs to stand for, the petitioner ceased to be an accused. Therefore, the said orders are also liable to be set aside. However, in the light of Annexure-1 regarding further investigation in VC 2/2018/PTA, the investigating officer certainly has the jurisdiction and authority to summon and record statements of any of the persons having acquaintance with the facts of the case in view of the provisions of Section 160 of the Code. When a person is so summoned, he is bound by law to obey such direction also. 10. When a person is so summoned, he is bound by law to obey such direction also. 10. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction to conduct investigation into the offences under Sections 201 , 203 , 465 and 466 of the IPC as against the petitioner. I make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of conducting further investigation in VC 2/2018/PTA in regard to the offence said to have been committed by Dr.Jeeve Justus and to summon and examine any witness, including the petitioner herein, in relation to the matters connecting to the commission of the said offence. Suffice it to say, the investigating officer has every authority to obtain specimen writings and signatures of the petitioner also for the purpose of investigation. I make it clear that this order will not in any way fetter the departmental action, if any, proposed against the petitioner.