Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 25 .08.2009 Dilbagh Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 6.9.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the minimum qualification prescribed for enrolment as a Constable in the Police Department was not Matriculation and, therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to have submitted a Matriculation Certificate. He submits that the findings which have been recorded by the Courts below are on the premise that the petitioner had submitted a forged certificate of 10th class. He submits that the evidence which was led by the prosecution does not prove the forgery. He further Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) -2- contends that there was no occasion for the petitioner to forge the Matriculation Certificate and, therefore, he has been convicted without any basis. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. No stand has been taken by the petitioner before the trial Court that he had not submitted the Certificate of Matriculation. Even in the statement given by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has nowhere stated that he had not submitted the document which has been found to be forged i.e. the Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that this document was never produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment cannot be accepted. The evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution is that the accused forged a Matriculation Certificate bearing his Roll No. 693528 issued in the year 1994. He, with an intention to get recruitment as Constable submitted the said Certificate and cheated the Second Reserve Battalion and fraudulently used the said Certificate as genuine knowing fully well that it is a forged certificate. The Certificate has been duly proved by the prosecution to be a forged one. Head Constable Jeet Singh PW-1 has, in his evidence, stated that a letter regarding verification of the Certificate of the petitioner was sought from the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali. In reply thereto, the Board has stated that the Certificate was never issued by the Board. The prosecution has further examined Virender Madan, Legal Assistant of the Punjab School Education Board as PW-4. He had brought the record and according to the Gazette Notification of March, 1989, roll number 693528 was not Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) -3- allotted to any candidate and as such, it was never allotted to Dilbagh Singh son of Makhan Singh. He stated further that according to the records of the Board, this number had never been allotted to any student. He has proved the report Exhibit PW-4/A. The Lower Appellate Court has considered the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution and on due consideration thereof, has held as follows:- “11. After considering the rival contention of ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, the perusal of the file shows that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved on the file that the certificate used by the appellant at the time of recruitment has never been issued by the Punjab School Education Board. The contention of the defence counsel that there is no minimum qualification has no weight in it. It is not to be determined that whether there was any minimum qualification for the appointment as Constable, but the appellant has forged the certificate of matriculation examination held in March, 1989 for getting the job of constable. It is not disputed that appellant had remained as Constable in the police department and inquiry was held during which the report was called from the Punjab school education Board, Mohali and the board gave the specific report that the certificate is forged one and never been issued by the Board under the Roll Number shown on it. It is also proved that services of the appellant were dismissed by the Competent Authority vide Ex. P.B. and have been conveyed to the appellant. In the inquiry, it was ordered that case be registered against Dilbagh Singh appellant. The statement of Varinder Madaan and report proved by him is very material showing that Dilbagh Singh Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) -4- was never allotted Roll No. 693528 for matriculation in the year 1989 and he same is not genuine document and the matriculation certificate has been produced by the appellant at the time of his recruitment as constable, so it cannot be said that it was prepared by anybody else for Dilbagh Singh and some one used it for the benefit of getting job. The citations relief upon by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable to be facts of the case in hand and are distinguishable. As such the findings of the trial court are well founded.” In the light of the above position, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. However, the jurisdiction of the Court while exercising its powers on the revisonal side are limited in nature and can be exercised only in cases where there is patent illegality in the procedure or where the findings are perverse. However, this is not the position in the present case. The findings which have been recorded by the trial Court and thereafter by the Lower Appellate Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence so led by the parties and, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has made a last stage effort to submit that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is on the higher side, and this is disproportionate to the offence having been proved against him. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner again cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner had obtained appointment as Constable by producing a forged Matriculation Certificate and has, thus, cheated the Second Reserve Battalion. He fraudulently used the said Certificate as Crl.Rev.No.2201 of 2009 (O&M) -5- genuine knowing fully well that it is a forged document. A person who is seeking appointment in a disciplined force on the basis of the document which is not genuine, does not deserve any leniency from the Court in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. August 25, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters Yes/No