IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.74 of 2000 Date of decision: March 15, 2010 Santosh Devi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Adocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide its judgment dated 21/27.1.1997, convicted the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') and sentenced her as under :- U/s 467 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three years. U/s 468 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s 471/420 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year each. However, in appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide its judgment dated 14.1.2000, while acquitting her of the charges under Sections 467/468 IPC, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to her under Sections 471/420 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that one Dhanpati moved a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani alleging therein that in the month of March, 1990, she had appeared in an interview for M.P.W. Course and she was in the waiting list. However, the accused daughter of Mange Ram forged her matriculation certificate by raising the total marks to 536 and obtained the priority, as such, got admission in the training, thereby depriving the complainant (who was otherwise higher in merit) of her right of admission. On the basis of the said complaint FIR No.305 of 1990 was registered. The case was investigated. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. Criminal Revision No.74 of 2000 -2- *** The accused was charged under Sections 467/471/420 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dalip Singh (PW1), Gangadhar Verma (PW2), Ravinder Kumar (PW3), SI Babu Ram (PW4), Hoshiar Singh Punia, DSP Vigilance Bhiwani (PW5) and Santosh Devi (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her and pleaded her false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. However, the First Appellate Court, while acquitting her of the charges under Sections 467/468 IPC, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded under Sections 471/420 IPC. Having scrutinized the records of the case, it appears that the complainant produced the certificate knowing fully well that the same was forged document in order to get undue benefit of seeking admission in the M.P.W. Training course. Both the courts below have confirmed the findings of fact regarding forgery of the document and using the same as genuine knowing fully well that it was forged one. Consequently, findings returned by both the courts below under Sections 471/420 IPC stand affirmed. However, on the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the offence took place way back in the year 1990 and she being young lady in an anxiety to get service as M.P.W. must have indulged into this malpractice. She has already undergone some part of the sentence. Now such must be a middle age woman having children and husband. No bad antecedents relating to her have been brought on record in order to enable this court to dub her as habitual offender, therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to extend her benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that she be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on her executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount Criminal Revision No.74 of 2000 -3- *** to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period she shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, she will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, she is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani for compliance. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. March 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge