THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.464 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: On receipt of reliable information that the petitioner and another are printing fake certificates and selling them to the needy people to get jobs in Gulf and other countries, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Hussainialam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.146 of 1998. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner (A-2) and another(A-1). But, however, as A-1 was absconding, the case against him was split up and the petitioner herein-A-1 alone was tried in C.C.No.130 of 2000 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, by his judgment, dated 18.02.2003, found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the said offences. He further observed that the said sentences shall run concurrently. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who by his judgment, dated 15.03.2004, dismissed the said appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court. The same is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case. The gravaman of the charge sheet is as follows: - On 21.10.1998, on credible information relating to the printing of fake certificates by A-2 and supplying them to A-1, who is said to have been selling the same to the needy people to get jobs in Gulf and other countries, for huge amounts, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hussainialam Police Station along with P.W-7 proceeded to Olga Hotel, New Road, Shalibanda, Hyderabad, and found A-2 in possession of seven fake certificates of various educational institutions. The accused was arrested and the said certificates were seized under the cover of panchnama. A-2 confessed that he was printing and supplying fake certificates of various educational institutions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and other states at the instance of A-1, who was selling those certificates to the needy persons who were seeking employment elsewhere. Subsequently, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-61 were marked. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence on record found the accused guilty of the said offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appeal is filed by the accused, which was also dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W-8, there is absolutely no further evidence to implicate the petitioner with the said offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. On the basis of the solitary testimony of P.W-8-the Investigating Officer, the Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner as if he is guilty of the said offences and prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the said submissions and contended that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is basing on the evidence on record, and hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgments. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses on its behalf. P.W-1 is the Additional Joint Secretary of Government Examinations, P.W-3 is the Joint Secretary of State Board of Technical Education, Hyderabad, P.W-5 is the Deputy Secretary of the Board of Intermediate. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5, it is clear that the said certificates which were found in possession of the petitioner herein and another are fake certificates and they are all degree certificates with blanks. To establish that the said certificates were seized from out of the possession of the petitioner and another, the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 6 as panch witnesses, in whose presence the said certificates were seized from the accused. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the Sub- Inspectors of Police who investigated into the crime and filed the charge sheet. Admittedly, the alleged seizure had taken place only in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 6, but they did not support the case of the production and as such, they were declared hostile. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the solitary testimony of the Investigating Officer, no person shall be convicted. I am totally in agreement with the said submission, but in a case of this nature, which is a serious crime affecting the public policy, in my considered view, the said general rule cannot be accepted. The evidence of P.W-8 is to the effect that on reliable information, he visited the place of offence, found the petitioner and another (i.e., A-1 who is absconding) in possession of seven fake certificates of various educational institutions and seized the same from their possession and on verification, the competent officers-P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 certified that they are all fake certificates. The seizure of the said fake certificates, according to P.W-8, happened in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 6 and in that regard, a seizure report-Ex.P-60 was also prepared and the same was signed by P.Ws.2 and 6. It is true that P.Ws.2 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution, but, they admitted their signatures on the seizure report, which was marked as Ex.P-60. From the above, it can definitely be inferred that the alleged incident i.e., seizure of the said fake certificates had taken place in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 6, but, for obvious reasons they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, as spoken to P.Ws.1, 3 and 5, the said certificates, which were seized from the possession of the present petitioner and another (A-1), marked as Exs.P-1, P-5 to P-10, P-12 to P-14, are bogus certificates and if those certificates are issued in favour of some individuals, apparently they get jobs and it is a very serious offence against the public at large. In those circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8-Investigating Officers can be taken into consideration. It is not as though P.Ws.2 and 6-panch witnesses have denied the entire case of the prosecution. They admitted their signatures on Ex.P-60 i.e., seizure panchnama. The evidence of P.W-8 coupled with Exs.P-60 clearly establish that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. All these aspects were dealt with by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court in detail in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences, which, in my considered view, needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place in the year 1998 i.e., about 12 years back, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court in appeal, for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 18th November 2010 DR