-1- Criminal Revision No.609 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.609 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 02, 2010. Hardial Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.B.B.S. Teji, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Gurdial Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo -2- Criminal Revision No.609 of 2003. rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Hakam Singh, co-accused of the petitioner (non-petitioner) was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 468 of the code. The appeal of the petitioner against his judgment and conviction recorded by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, amicus curiae, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.B.S. Teji, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner had got appointment as Constable in the Punjab Police on the basis of a bogus Matriculation Certificate. On inquiry from the Punjab School Education Board, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (for short `the Board'), the Secretary of the Board wrote letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, that result card and Certificate of the petitioner were bogus because Hardial Singh son of Tar Singh had passed Matriculation under Roll No.695019 in the year 1987 whereas the name of the father of petitioner Hardial Singh is Amar Singh. On receipt of this information from the Board, the instant case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in this case. During inquiry, the petitioner confessed to have obtained bogus certificate of Matriculation from Hakam Singh (co-accused of the petitioner - non petitioner) for Rs.700/-. The prosecution, in support of its case, besides other -3- Criminal Revision No.609 of 2003. witnesses, examined Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar as P.W.8, who proved the recruitment form (Exhibit P.F) filled in by the petitioner. A perusal of this recruitment form (Exhibit P.F) reveals that the petitioner-accused had relied upon Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit P.A) and he marked the marks and date of birth mentioned in this Certificate in the form while seeking recruitment as Constable. This recruitment form was filled by the petitioner in his own handwriting and bears his photograph. It was this Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit P.A) which was found to be bogus on an inquiry from the Board. As per this Certificate the petitioner had allegedly passed the Matriculation Examination under Roll No.695019 in the year 1987. However, on inquiry from the Board, it was revealed that Hardial Singh son of Tar Singh had passed Matriculation Examination under Roll No.695019 in the year 1987. The name of the father of the petitioner is Amar Singh. The prosecution had also examined Hardial Singh son of Tar Singh as P.W.7, who stated that he had passed his Matriculation Examination in 1987-88 and he was issued Roll No. 695019. Darbara Singh, Superintendent of the Board (P.W.1) proved on record that the Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit P.A) was bogus. The petitioner, thus, forged his Matriculation Certificate and used the same as a genuine document for the purpose of securing job as a Constable in the Punjab Police. He has, thus, rightly been convicted by the Courts below. In view of the above, conviction of the appellant under Sections 465/471 of the Code, as recorded by the Courts below -4- Criminal Revision No.609 of 2003. is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than eighteen years as the matter relates to December, 1991, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and the default case are left unaltered. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. March 02, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE