B A I L S L I P The Petitioner/Accused viz., Selvamani was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 19.1.2007 in MP.No.1 of 2007 in Crl.RC.No.87/07. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.4.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.87 of 2007 Selvamani .. Petitioner (Accused) Vs. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anthihyur Police Station, Crime No.137 of 2009, Erode District. .. Respondent (Complainant) Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 9.1.2007 in Crl.A.No.267 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, Erode District, against the order dated 7.8.2006 in C.C.No.318 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For respondent: Mr.S.Rajendiran, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER The Crl.R.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 9.1.2007 in Crl.A.No.267 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.4, Bhavani, Erode District, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.318 of 2001, dated 7.8.2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Bhavani, whereby the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment each. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The skeleton of the prosecution case is as follows: The Chief Educational Officer P.W.8 received 442 candidates from the Employment Exchange and scrutinised the papers and issued the post of Teacher to 256 candidates. The revision petitioner/accused received the appointment order ExP-1 on 27.1.1999 and she reported for duty on 27.1.1999 before the Headmistress-in-charge of the School, namely P.W.2 and produced her documents Exs.P-2 to P-5. The documents were sent for verification and on verification, it was found that except SSLC mark sheet, the other documents were fabricated and Ex.P-7 termination order was issued on 26.2.1999 and P.W.1 has given complaint Ex.P-9 and Ex.P- 13 is the FIR and the case has been registered against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC. P.W.10 investigating officer took the case on file and investigated the case and he examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused. 3. Since the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court, after following procedures, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13, and found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC and sentenced her as stated above, against which, the revision petitioner/accused preferred criminal appeal and the appellate Court, after considering the arguments of both the counsel, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.R.C. has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the documents have been scrutinised by the person who was not cited as a witness and he was not examined before Court. The evidence of P.W.8 Chief Educational Officer is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and hence, there is no evidence to show that the documents submitted by the petitioner, are fabricated. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no document or evidence to show that this petitioner alone fabricated the documents and prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused. He further submitted the revision petitioner/accused is aged about 36 years and because of the criminal proceedings, she is yet to be married and her sisters will be put to peril and that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences, leniency may be shown in the sentence of imprisonment. 5. Refuting the said contentions, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that after appointment of the person to a post, the usual practice is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the documents produced by the incumbent will be forwarded to the Director of School Education for verification and on verification, it was found that except the SSLC mark sheet, the other documents were fabricated and so, the Chief Educational Officer, Erode, i.e. P.W.8, has given a complaint and P.Ws.9 and 10 investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused and both the Courts below have considered the evidence of witnesses and came to the correct conclusion and prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by both sides' counsel, and on a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that admittedly, the petitioner/accused has received the appointment order Ex.P-1. It is true that P.W.8 Chief Educational Officer received 442 applications from the District Employment Officer and after scrutinising the same, he issued appointment orders for 256 candidates. The petitioner also received appointment order Ex.P-1, dated 27.1.1999, pursuant to which, she reported for duty on 27.1.1999 before P.W.2 Headmistress-in-charge of the School. As per usual practice, the records/documents produced by the incumbent, have been forwarded to the Director of School Education, where the documents produced by the petitioner/accused were scrutinised by the educational authorities. It was found that except SSLC mark sheet, the other documents produced were submitted by the petitioner, were fabricated documents and the details of the same were deposed by P.W.7. The report dated 13.2.2009 of the Director of School Education, has been received by the Chief Educational Officer, regarding the fabrication of the documents and on 26.2.1999, the termination order was issued and on the very next day, a complaint has been lodged. In such circumstances, the Director of School Education is the competent person to scrutinise the records. The non-examination of the person who personally scrutinised the records, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the records/documents Exs.P-2 to P-5 have been submitted by the petitioner and those documents were fabricated documents and hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC. In view of the conclusion that the non-examination of the person who personally scrutinised the records, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of P.W.8 Chief Educational Officer is in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not hold good. There is evidence to show that the documents submitted by the petitioner, are fabricated and it is proved that she fabricated the documents. The trial Court and the first appellate Court considered the above aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC. Hence, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the conviction passed by both the Courts below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is coming from a rustic village and she is aged about 36 years and she is a spinster and she is having two sisters and they are also spinsters and she hails from a rustic village and the occurrence took place in 1999 and for 12 years, she is suffering due to this case and hence, leniency in the sentence may be shown on her. 8. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 398 (Bhagwandas Vs. State of Rajasthan), and it was a case of corruption and the Apex Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone and confirmed the fine amount. While perusing the said citation, it is seen that the accused therein were charged for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 and 471 of IPC and also under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it was a case of fabrication of cash memos, for a paltry sum of Rs.31.89 p and they were convicted for the said offences and as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sentence upon a convicted person shall not be less than one year except for special reasons to be recorded in writing and considering these aspects, the Apex Court modified the sentence to the one already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (1) SCC 719 (Tulsibhai Jivabhai Changani Vs. State of Gujarat), the Apex Court considering the past and present records of the accused therein, modified the sentence to the one already undergone. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 1272 (Kuldip Sharma Vs. State), wherein, the Delhi High Court, taking into consideration the fact that the offence was committed long back, reduced the sentence to the one already undergone by the accused. 11. Considering the above citations and the prayer made by learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused for leniency in the sentence, this Court feels it just and proper to modify the sentence to the one already undergone by her and the fine amount for each of the offences shall be enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. (Total fine amount – Rs.15,000/-). 12. Accordingly: (a) Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. (b) The conviction of the petitioner/accused is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) The sentence is modified to the one already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused. (d) The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences (Total fine amount – Rs.15,000/-) (e) It is stated that the revision petitioner/accused already paid the fine amount of Rs.3,000/- earlier imposed by the trial Court, and the remaining fine amount of Rs.12,000/- shall be paid by the revision petitioner/accused, in default, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. cs Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, Erode District, 2. Do Through the Prl Sessions Judge, Erode. 3. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, Erode District. 4. Do Through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. 5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Anthihyur Police Station, 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. 8. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 9. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. + 1 cc to Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate SR No. 24178 JRG(CO) SR/21.4.2011 Crl.R.C.No.87 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/