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
