CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 1 of 29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 19.08.2026

Pronounced on: 22.09.2026

Uploaded on: 22.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010300952023

+ CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.A. 20762/2023

VIKAS BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv.

(through VC)

versus

C. B. I. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Akhilesh SPP for CBI along with

Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Adv.

# CNR No. DLHC010466182023

+ CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 & CRL.M.A. 31694/2023

MADHUKESHWAR MANUNATH HEGDE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. (through

VC)

versus

CBI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Akhilesh SPP for CBI along with

Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1.The present petitions are connected matters arising out of the same

FIR/RC No. CY-1/2010/E/0003dated 01.04.2010, registered by the CBI,

EOU-IX/EO-III, Delhi, in relation to the same tender process concerning

the supply of six Flame Photometers under the Food and Drugs Capacity

Building Project. Both the petitions are challenging the Order on Charge

dated 13.02.2023 passed inCBI No. 416/2019, titledCBI v. M/s Ambalal

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 2 of 29

Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. & Ors., and seeking quashing of the

consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR/RC

insofar as they concern the respective petitioners. Since both matters arise

from the same set of facts, tender process, investigation and Order on

Charge, they are being heard as connected matters.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that the present

proceedings arise out ofFIR/RC No. CY-1/2010/E/0003dated

01.04.2010, registered by the CBI on the basis of a complaint made by Sh.

S.K. Gupta, the then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, Government of India. The allegations were that M/s Ambalal

Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., also known as M/s Systronics, had entered into

a criminal conspiracy with unknown officials of Hospital Services

Consultancy Corporation (HSCC) in connection with/relation to a tender

under the Food and Drugs Capacity Building Project during the period

2004 to 2006 and, in furtherance thereof, had submitted eight forged/false

performance certificates in the tender for supply of six Flame

Photometers, resulting in resulting in alleged pecuniary loss to the Central

Government and corresponding gain to M/s Systronics.

3.The allegation in the case was that M/s Systronics, New Delhi, had

submitted, along with its bid documents, a performance statement

claiming supply of more than five Flame Photometers during the period

from 01.12.2002 to 30.11.2005. The performance statement contained the

names of eight purchasers, namely, M/s Chinar Pharmaceuticals;

University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kurukshetra

University; M/s Mitra Industries Pvt. Ltd.; M/s New Era Scientific

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 3 of 29

Corporation; M/s Hospicare Biomedical Pvt. Ltd.; The Energy and

Resources Institute; M/s Aar Vee & Company; and the Assistant Director,

Soil Testing, Rudrapur.

4.During investigation, the officials/persons of the aforesaid firms

and organisations stated that their respective firms had purchased the

Flame Photometers from M/s Systronics, but that the performance

certificates in question had not been issued by their respective firms,

companies or organisations. The certificates were accordingly treated by

the investigating agency as not genuine. It was further revealed that the

petitioner in CRL.M.C.-8489/2023, M.M. Hegde was the Branch Manager

of the Delhi Office of M/s Systronics during the period 2004 to 2006 and

was alleged to have attested/verified the copies of the eight performance

certificates submitted with the bid documents by putting his signature

along with the office stamp of M/s Systronics. The handwriting expert,

however, did not give a definite opinion regarding the signatures

attributed to Mr. Hegde on the photocopies of the performance

certificates, and the original eight performance certificates were not

recovered during investigation.

5.As regards the petitioner inCRL.M.C.-5490/2023, Vikas Bhardwaj,

it is stated that he had been appointed by M/s Systronics as its liaising

agent to follow up the tender with HSCC. The prosecution case alleged

that the certificates were prepared in the office of M/s Systronics on

05.12.2005, a day before the actual opening of the tender, by Vikas

Bhardwaj with the assistance of Mr. Hegde and three employees of M/s

Systronics. Mr. Bhardwaj has stated that he was not the person who

submitted the bid documents and was not involved in finalisation of the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 4 of 29

bid documents, which were finalised and submitted by the staff of M/s

Systronics.

6.Out of the eight certificates, five were alleged to have been

prepared using the computer placed in the office of the Branch Manager

of M/s Systronics; however, forensic examination of the seized hard disk

did not establish the existence of the said certificates or traces thereof. The

remaining three photocopies were sent for examination by the GEQD,

which confirmed that the photocopy relating to M/s Mitra Industries Pvt.

Ltd. appeared to have been typed on the English Remington manual

typewriter of M/s Systronics, but the person who had typed the certificate

could not be conclusively established. The originals of the said certificates

were also not recovered during investigation.

7.It is stated that in the first closure report, the CBI had recorded that

no concrete oral or documentary evidence had been gathered linking the

petitioners with the preparation of the performance certificates or the

alleged conspiracy, and that there had been no monetary or financial loss

to the Government of India and no allegation of short supply or

malfunctioning of the material supplied by M/s Systronics. The learned

Trial Court, vide order dated 29.09.2011, did not accept the said closure

report and directed further investigation on various issues, including

whether the performance certificates had been filed for wrongful gain to

M/s Systronics and wrongful loss to the Government and competing

bidders; whether the certificates had knowingly been used as genuine

documents; whether the original performance certificates were required

under the tender conditions; and whether the same procedure had been

followed in respect of the other bidders.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 5 of 29

8.Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, further investigation was

conducted by the CBI and another closure/final report was filed. The said

report recorded that M/s Systronics was found to be the lowest bidder out

of the three bidders on the basis of technical and commercial evaluation

and had subsequently supplied the six Flame Photometers under the

contract. It was further recorded that there was no complaint or allegation

regarding short or spurious supply or improper functioning of the supplied

equipment, that the scientific opinion regarding the signatures attributed

to Mr. Hegde on the alleged false certificates was inconclusive, and that

the actual forger or person who prepared the certificates could not be

pinpointed.

9.The said closure report further recorded that the eight performance

certificates submitted with the bid documents had not been issued by the

respective companies. It was also recorded that filing of the original

performance certificates was not mandatory under the terms and

conditions of the tender, that the mandate of the Tender Scrutiny

Committee did not extend to checking the genuineness of the performance

certificates submitted with the bid, that the contents of the performance

certificates were otherwise true inasmuch as M/s Systronics had in fact

supplied the equipment to the eight firms in the past and the equipment

was working satisfactorily, and that the procedure adopted for processing

the bids and awarding the contract had been followed, with no

involvement of public servants revealed.

10.It is further stated that the investigation had recorded the statements

of three employees of M/s Systronics, namely Ms. Sulochana, Sh. Pankaj

Manjhi and Sh. V.K. Gupta, concerning the preparation and signing of

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 6 of 29

certain performance certificates. The petitioners rely upon the fact that,

apart from the said oral statements, there was no expert opinion or

corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged acts attributed to them.

It was also recorded that the employees who had initially offered to make

statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. subsequently refused to make such

statements before the concerned Court.

11.After completion of the further investigation, the CBI again

concluded that sufficient evidence had not emerged against the persons

concerned and submitted a closure/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

on 08.05.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.03.2014, the learned Trial

Court directed the CBI to submit the report in proper form mentioning the

names and addresses of M.M. Hegde and Vikas Bhardwaj for taking

cognizance. In compliance thereof, the CBI submitted its final report on

15.09.2015, and cognizance was taken by the learned CMM, Rouse

Avenue Courts, New Delhi, on 10.04.2019.

12.Thereafter, vide order dated 13.02.2023, the learned Trial Court

considered the material on record and held that a prima facie case was

made out against the petitioner M.M. Hegde and co-accused Vikas

Bhardwaj for offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC. The

learned Trial Court, however, discharged both accused in respect of the

offence under Section 468 IPC. Relevant portion of the impugned order

quoted hereinbelow—

I have heard the arguments and perused the

record.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 7 of 29

In the case of State ofBihar vs Ramesh Singh, AIR·

1977 SC 2018, it was observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India that at the initial stage if

there is a suspicion which leads the Court to think

that there is ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence then it is not

open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused.

Then, in the case of State of T. N. vs N. Suresh

Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709, it was held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that at the stage

of framing of charge 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 material would not warrant a conviction and

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. It was

held that the law does not permit a mini trial at

this stage.

The statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses

LW6 Sh. T. G. Nandkumar, LW-7 Dr. Ajay Kumar

Verma, LW-8 Dr. Rajesh Agnihotri, LW-9 Sh.

Rajeshwar Bhardwaj, LW-11 Sh. Akhil Gupta,

LW-12 Sh. Deepak Mehendiratta, LW-15 Sh. Sunil

Kumar, LW-20 Sh. S. K. Dhall and LW-21 Sh.

Parag Aggarwal are all to the effect that the

performance certificates allegedly attributed to

their respective business concerns have not been

issued by them to MIs Systronics although they

had all purchased and received Flame

Photometers from Mis Systronics. The said

statements are prima fade corroborative of the

allegations of forgery of the performance

certificates.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 8 of 29

From the statements u/s 161 Cr..C. of the members

of the Tender Scrutiny Committee of HSCC i.e.

LW-10 Sh. Ajay Suri and LW-18 Sh. S. A. Usmani

as well as LW-16 Sh. Virendra Kumar Singh, the

then Chief General Manager, HSCC under whose

supervision the tender in question was processed it

is clear that one of the terms of the post

qualification of the bidding documents was that

the bidder was required to furnish the information

on past supplies and their satisfactory

performance and according to LW-16 non-

compliance of the condition would constitute a

major deviation of the tender norms and could

result in ilisquali#cation of ·the· bidder. arid the

bidder was required to attach the certificate from

the purchaser. certifying the satisfactory

performance of the equipment so supplied. Thus, if

the performance certificates had not been attached

alongwith the bid it could have resulted in

disqualification and so the performance

certificates were an integral part of the bid

documents for fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

According to the statement of LW-13 · Sh. Navin

Kumar, who had been working as Branch

Manager, Mis Systronics, Delhi since July/August

2007, accused M. M. Hegde who was posted as

BranchManager of the Delhi office from June

2004 to January 2006 had informed the

subordinate office staff that the company would be

applying for the tender and Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Majhee was directed by the accused M. M. Hegde

to collect the tender application/documents for

submitting the same after completing the

documentation work. Further in his statement u/s

161 Cr.P.C. Sh. Navin Kumar stated that accused

Vikas Bhardwaj contacted accused M. M. Hegde

for doing the liaising and consultancy work for the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 9 of 29

tender and had informed the company that he was

having experience in handling the tender work and

would ensure that the tender was awarded to Mis

Systronics.

LW-14 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Majhee in his statement

u/s 161 Cr.P.C. stated that on the instructions of

accused M. M. Hegde he had gone to the office of

HSCC for collecting the documents pertaining to

the tender in question. It has come out in the

statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Majhee that on 05.12.2005, the accused Vikas

Bhardwaj came to their office and met the accused

M. M. Hegde in his chamber and asked for the

documents pertaining to the tender which were

thereafter handed over by Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Majhee to the accused Vikas Bhardwaj on the

instructions of accused M. M. Hegde and also that

the accused Vikas Bhardwaj prepared the

performance certificates in the office cabin of the

accused M M Hegde and handed over three

photocopies of letter heads of the companies i.e.

M/s New Era Scientific Corporation, Mitra

Industries Pvt Ltd and Office of Assistant Director

(Soil Testing) to Ms. Sulochana to type the same. It

has further come out in the statement of LW-14 Sh.

Pankaj Kumar Majhee that accused M. M. Hegde

signed on the eight copies of the performance

certificates the next day in the morning i.e.

06.12.2005, which were then submitted in the

office of HSCC India by LW-14.

Prima facie, statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. of the

prosecution's witnesses Sh. Navin Kumar and Sh.

Pankaj Kumar Majhee point to the active role of

accused persons in pursuing the award of the

tender and it is no defence for the accused persons

to say that the company Mis Systronics has not

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 10 of 29

been made an accused especially when no

evidence on record suggests that the company

through its Board of Directors or other higher

officials had instructed the accused persons to

ensure that the tender is awarded to it at any cost.

LW-22 Ms. Sulochana has also prima facie

corroborated the version of LW-14 submitting in

her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that on 05.12.2005

at around 04.00 pm accused M.·M. Hegde Branch

Manager specially introduced accused Vikas

Bhardwaj to her saying that the accused Vikas

Bhardwaj would do the liaising work for the

tender of the HSCC and asked her to follow the

instructions of accused Vakas Bhardwaj. LW-22

stated inter alia that the· accused Vikas Bhardwaj

asked her to type on blank photocopies of

letterheads of the companies M/s New Era

S.~ientific Corporation,. Mitra Industries Pvt. Ltd.

and office of Assistant Director (Soil Testing) and

also dictated the contents alongwith dates which

were ante-dated and after typing the same, LW-22

handed over the same to ,accused Vikas Bhardwaj

and informed accused M. M. Hegde about the

same. Further, LW-22 stated in her statement u/s

161 Cr.P.C. that she signed on the performance

certificate printed on photocopy of the letterhead

of MIs Hospicare Biomedical Pvt. Ltd. on the

instructions of the accused Vikas Bhardwaj and

informed accused M. M. Hegde about the same.

LW-17 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, who was working

as a peon in M/s Systronics stated in his statement

u/s 161 Cr.PC. that the accused Vikas Bhardwaj

got him to make false sign on a certificate of

Chinar Pharmaceuticals.

The fact that LW-14 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Majhee,

LW-17 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and LW-22 Ms.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 11 of 29

Sulochana refused to give statements u/s 164

Cr.P.C., as noted in the final report, 'does not at

this stage diminish the prima facie value to be

attached to the statements of these witnesses u/s

161 Cr.PC. and the prosecution is required to be

given a chance _to examine these witnesses on

oath during trial to establish the allegations

against the accused persons.

From the statements of the prosecution's witnesses

u/s 161 Cr.P.C. especially of LW-14 Sh. Pankaj

Kumar Majhee and LW-22 Ms. Sulochana and

other documents on record, prima facie strong

suspicion arises that the accused persons M. M.

Hegde and Vikas Bhardwaj entered into a criminal

conspiracy -sometime during October-December

2015 (after tender of HSCC was advertised) for

getting prepared forged documents i.e.

performance certificates and using the same

fraudulently by way of getting them presented on

06.12.2005 to the HSCC for the purpose of

satisfying one of the conditions for entering Mis

Systronics as a bidder in the tender of HSCC and

inducing HSCC to consider M/s Systronics eligible

for participating in the bidding process and

subsequently awarding the tender to it which

HSCC would not have done had it known that the

performance certificate filed alongwith the bid

documents were forged thereby cheating HSCC

and also the genuine bidders Mis Yorco Sales Pvt.

Ltd and Mis Elico Ltd. who were wrongly deprived

of a fair opportunity to be chosen for the award of

tender. The statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. of the

tender scrutiny committee members LW-10 Sh.

Ajay Suri and LW-18 Sh. S. A. Usmani are

relevant to note in this regard as both witnesses

have stated therein that apart from Mis Systronics,

two other companies i.e. Mis Yorco Sales Pvt Ltd

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 12 of 29

and Mis Elico Ltd. were found technically and

commercially responsive. As a consequence of the

tender awarded to Mis Systronics flowing from the

deception purportedly practiced by the accused

persons, the technical equipment was supplied to

HSCC which paid 90% of the bill amount of

Rs.2,51,522/- to Mis Systronics~ Thus, que to the

alleged cheating the tender was awarded and

payment was made by HSCC which in such

circumstances would tantamount to wrongful loss

to HSCC. As to what was the motive and incentive

for the accused persons to commit the alleged acts

would have to be shown in evidence by the CBI.

The· fact that the original performance certificates

could not be recovered during the course of

investigation is not a ground warranting discharge

of . the accused persons and the effect thereof is to

be seen at a later stage after trial.

From a scrutiny of the final report and annexed

documents, inter alia statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. of

the witnesses, documents pertaining to the tender

in question etc. there is sufficient material on

record to frame charges against the accused

persons M. M. Hegde and Vikas Bhardwaj for the

offences of criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC and

the offences of cheating and fraudulently or

dishonestly using forged documents as genuine (in

furtherance to the criminal conspiracy). The

offence u/s 468 IPC is not made out even prima

facie against either- of the accused persons as the

allegations are that the accused persons got

prepared the forged documents and not that they

were the makers of the documents themselves. As

per Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj (2009) 15

sec, it is the maker of the document who alone is

liable for the offence u/s 468 IPC. Thus, both the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 13 of 29

accused persons are discharged for the offences

u/s 468 IPC.

Accordingly, put up for framing of charge u/s 120-

B IPC, u/s 420/120-B IPC and 471/120-B IPC

against accused persons M. M. Hegde and Vikas

Bhardwaj on 25.03.2023.

13.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2023, the petitioners

M.M. Hegde and Vikas Bhardwaj have each preferred separate petitions

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking

quashing of theFIR/RC No. CY-1/2010/E/0003dated 01.04.2010 and the

order on charge dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned CMM, Rouse

Avenue Courts, New Delhi. The two petitions, arising out of the same FIR

and the same order on charge, are connected matters. Vide order dated

21.11.2023,CRL.M.C. 5490/2023andCRL.M.C. 8489/2023,being

connected matters arising out of the same FIR, were listed before the

learned co-ordinate Bench. Vide order dated 29.04.2024, the proceedings

before the learned Trial Court were stayed, and the said interim order has

continued thereafter.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioner- Vikas Bhardwaj

14.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the

Order on Charge dated 13.02.2023 as well as the consequential

proceedings arising out of FIR/RC No. CY-1/2010/E/0003.

15.Learned counsel submits that the CBI itself filed closure reports

twice during the course of investigation. It is submitted that, despite

further investigation pursuant to the directions of the learned Trial Court,

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 14 of 29

the investigating agency could not gather any concrete oral or

documentary evidence connecting the petitioner with the preparation of

the alleged forged performance certificates or the alleged conspiracy.

16.It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed by M/s Systronics

only as a liaising agent to follow up the tender with HSCC and that he was

neither responsible for finalising the bid documents nor was he the person

who submitted the bid on behalf of M/s Systronics. It is contended that the

bid documents were submitted under the signature of the Branch

Manager, M.M. Hegde.

17.Learned counsel further submits that the original eight performance

certificates were never recovered during investigation. The handwriting

expert also failed to give any definite opinion regarding the signatures

attributed to M.M. Hegde. Thus, the prosecution has been unable to

establish who actually prepared or forged the alleged certificates.

18.It is further submitted that, out of the eight certificates, five were

allegedly prepared on the computer situated in the office of the Branch

Manager; however, forensic examination of the hard disk did not establish

the existence of the said certificates or any trace thereof. As regards the

remaining three certificates, the GEQD examination could only establish

that the photocopies appeared to have been typed on the typewriter of M/s

Systronics, but could not establish the identity of the person who had

typed them. The originals of those certificates were also not recovered.

19.Learned counsel submits that the only material relied upon against

the petitioner is the statements of three employees of M/s Systronics,

namely Ms. Sulochana, Sh. Pankaj Manjhi and Sh. V.K. Gupta. It is

submitted that even these statements, when examined individually, do not

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 15 of 29

establish the petitioner's involvement in the preparation of all the alleged

certificates.

20.In particular, learned counsel submits that Ms. Sulochana stated that

she typed certain certificates on the basis of dictation allegedly given by

the petitioner, whereas she herself signed only one certificate relating to

Hospicare Biomedical Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, Pankaj Manjhi stated that the

petitioner had arranged a performance certificate and asked him to sign

one relating to Aar Vee & Company, while V.K. Gupta stated that he had

signed one certificate relating to Chinar Pharmaceuticals at the asking of

the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that none of these witnesses has

stated that the petitioner himself forged the signatures appearing on the

certificates or that he had personal knowledge that the certificates were

forged.

21.It is further submitted that there is no expert opinion or independent

corroborative material establishing that the signatures allegedly made by

the said employees were actually made by them, or connecting the

petitioner with the remaining certificates. The actual author or forger of

the alleged documents could not be identified during investigation.

22.Learned counsel also relies upon the findings recorded in the CBI's

closure report that M/s Systronics was the lowest bidder, that the six

Flame Photometers were subsequently supplied in accordance with the

contract, and that there was no allegation of short supply, spurious supply

or improper functioning of the equipment. It is therefore submitted that no

monetary or financial loss was caused to the Government.

23.It is further submitted that submission of original performance

certificates was not mandatory under the tender conditions,and that the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 16 of 29

mandate of the Tender Scrutiny Committee did not extend to

independently verifying the genuineness of the certificates. The

investigation also did not reveal involvement of any public servant in the

tender process.

24.Learned counsel accordingly submits that the material on record

does not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 120-B, 420 and 471

IPCagainst the petitioner. It is contended that merely dictating the

contents of certain certificates or asking employees to sign them, without

proof of knowledge that the documents were forged or of an intention to

deceive, cannot by itself establish the offences alleged against the

petitioner.

25.It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order on Charge dated

13.02.2023 suffers from non-appreciation of the material collected during

investigation and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Learned

counsel consequently prays that the Order on Charge dated 13.02.2023

and the consequential proceedings arising out of FIR/RC No. CY-

1/2010/E/0003 be quashed qua the petitioner Vikas Bhardwaj.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner- M. M. Hegde

26.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was merely working as

the Branch Manager of the Delhi office of M/s Systronics during the

relevant period and is alleged to have attested/verified copies of the

performance certificates. However, the investigation has failed to

establish that the petitioner had prepared, forged or caused the preparation

of any of the alleged performance certificates.

27.It is further submitted that the original eight performance

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 17 of 29

certificates were never recovered and the handwriting/forensic

examination regarding the signatures attributed to the petitioner remained

inconclusive.Further, although five certificates were alleged to have been

prepared on a computer situated in the office of the Branch Manager,

forensic examination of the seized hard disc did not reveal the existence

or any electronic trace of the said certificates. As regards the remaining

certificates, the forensic examination could only establish that they had

been typed on a typewriter belonging to M/s Systronics, but could not

identify the person who had typed them.

28.Learned counsel further submits that the CBI itself had initially

filed a closure/final report recording that no concrete oral or documentary

evidence had been collected connecting the accused persons with the

preparation of the alleged certificates or the alleged conspiracy. Even after

further investigation pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2011, the CBI once

again submitted a closure/final report and could not identify the actual

maker or forger of the alleged documents.

29.It is also submitted that M/s Systronics was the lowest bidder, the

six Flame Photometers were duly supplied under the contract, and there

was no complaint regarding short supply, spurious supply or

malfunctioning of the equipment. Accordingly, it is contended that no

monetary or financial loss was caused to the Government of India.

30.Learned counsel further submits that the tender conditions did not

require submission of the original performance certificates,nor was the

Tender Scrutiny Committee required to verify their genuineness. None of

the participating bidders had submitted original performance certificates,

and no involvement of any public servant was ultimately established.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 18 of 29

31.It is therefore contended that the material collected during

investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences of

criminal conspiracy, cheating or knowingly using a forged document as

genuine against the petitioner. The petitioner's position as Branch

Manager or his alleged attestation of the documents, by itself, cannot

establish his knowledge of the alleged forgery or participation in the

alleged conspiracy.

32.Learned counsel accordingly submits that, in the absence of any

legally sustainable material directly connecting the petitioner with the

alleged forgery or conspiracy, continuation of the criminal proceedings

would amount to an abuse of the process of law.It is, therefore, prayed

that the Order on Charge dated 13.02.2023 be set aside qua the petitioner

and the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of FIR/RC No.

CY-1/2010/E/0003 be quashed.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/CBI

33.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/CBI relies

upon the status report and submits that, pursuant to the investigation, it

was found that M/s Systronics had submitted forged performance

certificates along with its bid documents to satisfy the eligibility criteria

for the tender.

34.It is submitted that the investigation revealed that the said

performance certificates had not been issued by the respective purchasers

and were forged. The statements of employees of M/s Systronics, namely

Pankaj Kumar Majhee and Sulochna, indicate that certain forged

certificates were prepared and signed at the office of M/s Systronics under

directions of the present petitioners, Vikas Bhardwaj and MM Hegde.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 19 of 29

35.Learned counsel further submits that the forged certificates were

material to the tender process, as compliance with the past-performance

requirement was an essential eligibility condition. On the basis of the said

documents, M/s Systronics was treated as eligible and was ultimately

awarded the tender, thereby depriving the other technically and

commercially responsive bidders of a fair opportunity.

36.It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, after considering

the material on record, including the statements of the prosecution

witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the other documents,

found a prima facie strong suspicionagainst the accused persons and

accordingly passed the order dated 13.02.2023. Learned counsel submits

that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to

examine whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists and is not

required to conduct a mini-trial or assess the evidence as if determining

guilt after trial.

37.Learned counsel accordingly submits that the issues regarding the

authorship of the forged certificates, the evidentiary value of the

statements of the employees, and the absence of original certificates are

matters to be tested during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at

the present stage.

38.It is, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out for

interference with the order dated 13.02.2023 or for quashing of the

proceedings, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

39.This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel appearing for the CBI and has perused the material placed

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 20 of 29

on record, including the impugned order on charge, the statements of the

witnesses recorded during investigation and the reports submitted by the

investigating agency.

40.The short question which arises for consideration is whether, on a

consideration of the material collected during investigation as it stands,

there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC, or whether

the impugned order on charge suffers from such illegality or perversity as

would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

41.At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to

conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or undertake a mini-trial.

The Court has to examine the material placed before it for the limited

purpose of determining whether the facts emerging from such material,

taken at their face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients of the

alleged offences and give rise to a prima facie case or grave suspicion

against the accused. At the same time, the jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. can be exercised where, even upon accepting the allegations and

the material relied upon by the prosecution at their face value, no offence

is made out or where continuation of the proceedings would otherwise

amount to an abuse of the process of law. The present case has, therefore,

to be examined within these parameters.

42.The principal submission of the petitioners is that the CBI itself

submitted closure reports on two occasions and that, despite further

investigation, the investigating agency could neither identify the person

who actually forged the certificates nor recover the original certificates. It

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 21 of 29

is also contended that the handwriting opinion regarding the signatures

attributed to petitioner M.M. Hegde remained inconclusive and that the

forensic examination of the seized hard disk did not reveal the alleged

certificates.

43.The aforesaid circumstances are certainly matters which may be

relied upon by the petitioners at the stage of trial. However, the opinion

expressed by the investigating agency in a final report is not conclusive

upon the Court. The Court is required to independently examine the

material forming part of the record for determining whether sufficient

ground exists to proceed against the accused. In the present case, the

learned Trial Court declined to accept the closure report and directed

further investigation vide order dated 29.09.2011. Thereafter,

notwithstanding the opinion of the investigating agency, cognizance was

ultimately taken and the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the

material placed before it, found sufficient ground to frame charges against

the petitioners. The mere filing of closure reports, therefore, cannot by

itself furnish a ground for quashing the proceedings if the material

otherwise discloses a prima facie case.

44.The question, therefore, is whether the material relied upon by the

learned Trial Court provides a basis for the conclusion that the petitioners

were prima facie involved in the preparation, procurement and subsequent

use of the alleged false performance certificates.

45.Insofar as petitioner Vikas Bhardwaj is concerned, the material on

record attributes specific acts to him. LW-14 Pankaj Kumar Majhee has

stated that on 05.12.2005, petitioner Bhardwaj came to the office of M/s

Systronics and met petitioner M.M. Hegde in his chamber. According to

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 22 of 29

the said witness, documents relating to the tender were handed over to

Bhardwaj on the instructions of Hegde and Bhardwaj thereafter prepared

the performance certificates in the office cabin of Hegde. The witness has

further stated that Bhardwaj handed over photocopies of the letterheads of

certain companies to Ms. Sulochana for typing the certificates.

46.The statement of LW-22 Sulochana materially supplements the

aforesaid version. She has stated that Bhardwaj was introduced to her by

Hegde as the person who would be looking after the liaison work

concerning the tender and that Bhardwaj instructed her to type certificates

on photocopies of the letterheads of certain companies and dictated their

contents and dates. She further stated that the dates mentioned therein

were ante-dated and that, after typing the certificates, they were handed

over to Bhardwaj. LW-17 Vijay Kumar Gupta has also stated that

Bhardwaj got him to make a false signature on a certificate relating to

Chinar Pharmaceuticals.

47.These statements, if taken at face value, do not merely indicate the

presence of Bhardwaj in the office of M/s Systronics or his general role as

a liaison agent. They attribute specific conduct to him in relation to the

very documents which were subsequently relied upon in the tender

process. The allegation is that he procured the blank photocopies of the

purported letterheads, dictated the contents and dates of the certificates

and got the employees of M/s Systronics to prepare or sign the same.

Whether these witnesses will withstand cross-examination and whether

their testimony will ultimately be sufficient to establish the guilt of

Bhardwaj are matters which can only be determined at trial. At the present

stage, however, their statements constitute material giving rise to a prima

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 23 of 29

facie case of his involvement in the alleged transaction.

48.The material against petitioner M.M. Hegde also cannot be viewed

in isolation. LW-13 Navin Kumar has stated that Hegde, who was the

Branch Manager of the Delhi office of M/s Systronics during the relevant

period, informed the staff that the company would be participating in the

tender and directed Pankaj Kumar Majhee to collect the tender documents

and complete the necessary documentation. The same witness has further

stated that Bhardwaj approached Hegde in connection with the liaison and

consultancy work concerning the tender.

49.More significantly, LW-14 has stated that the certificates prepared

on 05.12.2005 were handed over to Hegde and that Hegde signed the

eight copies of the performance certificates on the following morning, i.e.

06.12.2005, before the documents were submitted to HSCC. Thus, the

material relied upon by the prosecution places Hegde in a position of

active participation in the process by which the alleged certificates were

prepared and thereafter put forward in the tender proceedings.

50.The fact that the handwriting expert did not give a conclusive

opinion regarding the signatures attributed to Hegde does not, at this

stage, completely displace the statement of LW-14 identifying Hegde as

the person who signed the certificates. The expert opinion is one piece of

material and its evidentiary value, as well as the effect of its

inconclusiveness, will have to be assessed by the Trial Court after the

witnesses and the expert material are tested in accordance with law. At the

stage presently under consideration, the Court is not required to determine

conclusively whether Hegde was or was not the person who signed the

documents.

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 24 of 29

51.The absence of the original performance certificates and the failure

of the forensic examination to conclusively establish the identity of the

person who typed or prepared every certificate also cannot, by

themselves, justify quashing of the proceedings. The prosecution case, as

reflected from the material collected during investigation, is not

dependent solely upon scientific identification of the person who

physically prepared each document. It is based, inter alia, upon the

statements of persons who allegedly witnessed the preparation of the

certificates and the participation attributed to the petitioners in getting the

documents prepared, signed and submitted. Whether the prosecution will

ultimately be able to establish these allegations through admissible

evidence is a matter for trial.

52.The contention thatM/s Systronicswas the lowest bidder and that

the six Flame Photometers were subsequently supplied without any

complaint regarding their quality or functioning also does not, at this

stage, demolish the prosecution case. The allegation is not that the

equipment supplied was necessarily defective. The allegation is that false

performance certificates were used to represent that the bidder satisfied

the stipulated past-performance requirement and thereby enabled M/s

Systronics to participate in and obtain the tender. The subsequent

satisfactory supply of the equipment is therefore a distinct issue from the

alleged deception practised at the stage of the tender process.

53.Likewise, the submission that the original performance certificates

were not required to be submitted does not, by itself, answer the allegation

of use of false documents. The distinction between the form in which a

document was required to be submitted and the genuineness of the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 25 of 29

document so submitted is material. If the material on record is accepted at

face value, the allegation is that certificates purporting to have been issued

by the respective purchasers were submitted despite those entities having

stated that they had not issued such certificates. The fact that photocopies

were submitted instead of originals does not, by itself, make the question

of their genuineness immaterial.

54.The statements of the witnesses whose statements were recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot, of course, be treated as substantive

evidence of guilt at the stage of trial. However, at the stage of determining

whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, the statements forming part

of the investigation record can be taken into consideration for assessing

whether the prosecution case discloses a prima facie case. The fact that

LW-14, LW-17 and LW-22 subsequently declined to make statements

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. may affect the evidentiary value and credibility

of their testimony at trial, but such subsequent conduct does not, by itself,

obliterate the material collected during investigation for the limited

purpose of deciding whether the proceedings should continue.

55.The material further indicates that the alleged certificates were not

documents wholly extraneous to the tender process. The statements of the

members of the Tender Scrutiny Committee and the concerned officials

indicate that information concerning past supplies and satisfactory

performance formed part of the eligibility requirements. The learned Trial

Court has also relied upon the statement of LW-16 to the effect that non-

compliance with the relevant condition could have resulted in

disqualification of the bidder. Thus, there is material to indicate that the

alleged false certificates were connected with an eligibility requirement

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 26 of 29

and were not merely collateral or irrelevant documents.

56.As regards the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution

allegation is that the false performance certificates were presented in order

to represent that M/s Systronics fulfilled the prescribed eligibility

requirement, thereby inducing HSCC to consider its bid and ultimately

award the tender. The fact that M/s Systronics was subsequently found to

be the lowest bidder or that the equipment was ultimately supplied does

not, at the stage of charge, conclusively negate the allegation of deception.

The precise question whether the alleged representation in fact induced

the decision of HSCC, and whether the requisite dishonest or fraudulent

intention existed on the part of the petitioners, are matters which require

appreciation of evidence at trial.

57.Similarly, insofar as Section 471 IPC is concerned, the relevant

question at this stage is whether there is material indicating that the

petitioners were involved in the use of the alleged forged documents as

genuine, with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they were

forged. The material discussed hereinabove, particularly the statements

attributing to Bhardwaj the preparation and procurement of the certificates

and to Hegde the signing of the certificates immediately before their

submission to HSCC, provides sufficient basis at this stage to examine

their alleged participation in the use of the documents as part of the same

transaction. The ultimate question regarding their knowledge and the

precise role played by each petitioner is a matter to be determined upon

evidence.

58.The allegations against the petitioners also disclose a sufficiently

connected sequence of events for the purpose of considering the allegation

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 27 of 29

of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution

material, taken at face value, indicates that Hegde was the Branch

Manager of M/s Systronics, introduced Bhardwaj for handling the tender-

related work, facilitated access to the tender documents and allegedly

signed the certificates, while Bhardwaj allegedly undertook the

preparation of the certificates and got the same typed and signed through

the employees of M/s Systronics. The certificates were thereafter

submitted in connection with the tender. At this stage, the Court is not

required to establish the conspiracy by direct evidence or determine the

final truth of these allegations. The question is whether the circumstances

emerging from the material raise a grave suspicion of concerted action. In

the opinion of this Court, they do.

59.It is also relevant that the learned Trial Court has not mechanically

accepted every allegation against the petitioners. After considering the

material, it discharged both petitioners in respect of the offence under

Section 468 IPC, holding that the material did not prima facie establish

that they were the makers of the false documents in the manner required

for that offence. The impugned order thus demonstrates that the learned

Trial Court examined the material with reference to the individual

offences and did not proceed merely on the basis of the allegations

contained in the FIR.

60.On an overall consideration of the material, this Court is of the view

that the present case cannot be characterised as one where the allegations,

even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the ingredients of the

offences alleged. There is material attributing specific acts to both

petitioners in relation to the preparation, signing and submission of the

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 28 of 29

disputed performance certificates. The absence of the original documents,

the inconclusive forensic opinion, the filing of closure reports by the

investigating agency and the subsequent refusal of certain witnesses to

give statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are matters which may assume

significance at the stage of appreciation of evidence. They do not,

however, at this stage, render the prosecution case so inherently

improbable or legally untenable as to warrant quashing of the

proceedings.

61.This Court is, therefore, unable to find any illegality, perversity or

abuse of the process of law in the impugned order dated 13.02.2023

warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The material on record, when considered at the threshold and

without undertaking a detailed appreciation of its probative value, is

sufficient to sustain the prima facie case against the petitioners for the

offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC.

62.Accordingly, the challenge to the order on charge dated 13.02.2023

is without merit. The observations made herein are confined strictly to the

question whether the material on record discloses sufficient ground for the

criminal proceedings to continue and shall not be construed as an

expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case.

63.This Court finds no occasion to interfere with the order of the

learned Trial Court discharging the petitioners in respect of Section 468

IPC. The said finding has not been shown to suffer from any illegality

warranting interference in the present proceedings.

CONCLUSION

64.Both petitions,CRL.M.C. 5490/2023andCRL.M.C. 8489/2023,

CRL.M.C. 5490/2023 & CRL.M.C. 8489/2023 Page 29 of 29

along with the pending applications, are dismissed.

65.The trial court shall now proceed with the trial without delay.

Nothing said in this judgment shall be taken as an opinion on the merits of

the case, the observations being confined only to the question of whether a

prima facie case exists for framing of charge.

66.A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for information

and compliance.

MADHU JAIN

(JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/RM