Crl. Revn. No. 699 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 699 of 1993 Date of Decision : July 21, 2009 Bakhshish Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jagmohan Ghuman, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Bakhshish Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner came to the office of District Education Officer (DEO), Bathinda on 20.12.1977 for interview for the post of teacher in Mathematics. The petitioner stated that he had passed B. A. examination by mentioning Mathematics as subject in place of Economics in the marks-sheet. The petitioner was given employment as teacher in Mathematics. However, on 30.09.1980, on checking of his original certificate for regularization of his service, it was found that the petitioner had obtained the job by cheating and by forging the certificate and by using the forged certificate as genuine one. This was Crl. Revn. No. 699 of 1993 2 verified from Punjabi University, Patiala, from where the certificate had been issued. After detection of this fraud and forgery, the petitioner resigned on 30.09.1981. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide judgment and order dated 11.03.1989, convicted the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the three offences and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.200/- respectively for the said offences. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 05.10.1993. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The prosecution has led oral as well as documentary evidence that the petitioner cheated the department and forged his B. A. examination certificate and used the same as genuine one. The forged certificate submitted by the petitioner has been produced in evidence. Official was examined from the University to prove that the said certificate was forged as the petitioner had Economics as one of his subjects and in place thereof, the petitioner mentioned Mathematics as one of the subjects in the certificate of B. A. examination. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has not been proved that it was the petitioner, who committed the forgery. The contention cannot be accepted. It is established beyond doubt that the petitioner had not passed B. A. examination with Mathematics as one of the Crl. Revn. No. 699 of 1993 3 subjects. However, the petitioner got employment as teacher in Mathematics and he remained in service for more than three years as such, knowing fully well that he was not qualified or eligible for the said post. Moreover, at the time of interview, the petitioner submitted forged certificate depicting that Mathematics was one of the subjects in B. A. examination passed by him. Obviously, the forgery was committed for the benefit of the petitioner and not for anybody else. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The conviction of the petitioner is well founded. The same is supported by evidence, which has been appreciated by both the courts below in correct perspective. The conviction of the petitioner is accordingly upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner may be released on probation or sentence of the petitioner be reduced. I have carefully considered the matter. Keeping in view the nature of offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the petitioner on probation. The sentence also does not warrant reduction because the petitioner, on the basis of forged certificate, served as teacher for more than three years without being qualified for the post. Merely because the FIR was registered almost 26 years ago is not enough to warrant reduction in sentence in such a case. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. July 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE