IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal Nos. 376 of 2003 & 378 of 2003 Date of Decision: 28.11.2011. Cr. Appeal No. 376 of 2003 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Harish Gautam …Respondent. Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2003 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Sanjay Rai …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate in Cr. Appeal No. 376 of 2003 Mr. M.S.Guleri, Advocate in Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2003. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. These appeals by the State are directed against the judgements dated 8.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi camp at Karsog, whereby he allowed the appeals of the respondents, set-aside the judgement of conviction and sentence passed upon them by the learned trial Court. 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Arun Nicholson was the Director of Institute for Computer Education and Software Training (ICES). He appointed one Shri Harish Gautam as his franchisee to run the institute and to impart computer training at Karsog. Accused Harish Gautam was to impart training as per the syllabus of the Company. The fee was collected by accused Harish Gautam on the basis of receipt issued by ICES. Out of this total fee ¼th was to be paid to the Company ICES. The examination of the students was to be conducted and the certificates were to be issued by the ICES. 3. According to the prosecution accused Harish Gautam in connivance with Sanjay Rai changed the name of the Company from ICES to ICE (Institute for Computer Education) and thereafter forged certificates were issued in the name of ICE in favour of all students who successfully completed the course. The second accused Sanjay Rai was the franchisee of ICES for Sarkaghat. It is alleged that he entered into a conspiracy with Harish Gautam and he was shown as a coordinator and the forged documents/certificates were also signed by him. 4. The main gravemen of the charge is that the students were fraudulently got admitted to the course 3 promising that the programme was being run by ICES but finally the certificates were issued by ICE. 5. As far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, the accused have not denied the signatures on any of the documents. According to accused Harish Gautam he was entitled to change the name of the institute as per documents Ext. DA and Ext. DX. His case further is that neither ICES nor ICE were registered institutes and the students were not cheated in any manner because the value of the certificates was identical. As far as the second accused is concerned, according to him he had virtually nothing to do with the matter as he was only the Project Coordinator and had signed the certificates as such. The learned trial Court convicted the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465 and 120- B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay separate fine in respect of each of offence. The accused filed appeals before the learned lower Appellate Court which have been allowed. Hence, these appeals by the State. 6. A perusal of the entire record shows that no complaint was filed by the students though they appeared in Court as witnesses. According to the students they were admitted by ICES and were 4 expecting that they would be granted certificates by ICES. However, all the students as well as the Investigating Officer admitted that neither ICES nor ICE were affiliated to any recognized Board or Institute and the certificates were issued by a private body only. No material has been placed on record to show that the students in any manner suffered by getting certificates from ICE. In fact some of the students admitted that they were not adversely affected by the certificates issued by ICE. It would be pertinent to mention that no complaint was filed by the students and the complaint was filed by the proprietor of ICES. 7. It appears that the accused may not have given share of the fees to the complainant and this would at best be a civil liability and not a criminal liability. The accused have not in any manner cheated the complainant. Even as far as the students are concerned they have not complained of any cheating and all that they said is that they were expecting that the certificates would be given by the ICES and not by the ICE. All the certificates issued by the respondents are in the name of ICE. The accused have not in any manner forged the certificates of ICES. Therefore, neither the offence of cheating nor the offence of forgery is made out. We, therefore, find no merit in 5 these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 28th November, 2011 ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.