* 1 * Cri.Revn.Appln. 106.2011 8.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2011 A.D. More ...... Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent * * * * Mrs. Madhavi Tavanandi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State­respondent. CORAM : ­ Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 8th March, 2011. P.C. :­ 1. This Revision Application challenges concurrent findings of guilt of the applicant in commission of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 471 Indian Penal Code. Alongwith the applicant, one Ramchandra Gavand­original accused no.2 was also tried. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 465 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 5th December, 1996 convicted the applicant and acquitted Ramchandra Gavand. The applicant challenged the order of his conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1996 in the Sessions Court, Kolhapur. The appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2001. * 2 * Cri.Revn.Appln. 106.2011 8.3.2011 2. The facts of the prosecution case stated in brief are as follows : . On 11th July, 1989 the applicant took admission to Doctor Babasaheb Ambedkar College, Vadgaon in the first year B.A. At that time, he produced School Leaving Certificate issued by the Arts, Science and Commerce Junior College, Ichalkaranji (Exhibit­12) and mark list of 12th Standard (Exhibit­13) of H.S.C. Board showing endorsement of passing of the examination. Later, it was realised by the complainant­ the Principal of Doctor Babasaheb Ambedkar College, Vadgaon that the documents at Exhibits.12 and 13 produced by the applicant were forged and fabricated documents. As per the Certificate, the applicant was an examinee at the examination centre No.1103 for HSC Board Certificate. The complainant realised that examination centre No.1103 was not in existence in Pune Division. Therefore, he filed complaint with the police on 15th December, 1989. The police registered the offence vide C.R. No. 108 of 1989. During the course of investigation, the police found that the applicant was never a student of Arts, Science and Commerce Junior College, Ichalkaranji for the 12th Standard. He was infact a student of B.Y. Yadav College­cum­High School, Peth­Vadgaon, District­ Kolhapur since the year 1982. He had appeared for final examination for 11th Standard from that College. For the 12th Standard also, he was in the same College. He filled up form for the 12th Standard * 3 * Cri.Revn.Appln. 106.2011 8.3.2011 examination from that College. The applicant had failed in the 12th Standard as per the mark­list and result sheet received by that College in March, 1988. 3. The prosecution examined the complainant (P.W.1), the Principal of Doctor Babasaheb Ambedkar College Peth­Vadgaon, Ashok Katkar (P.W.2)­Officer from B.Y. Yadav College­cum­High School, Peth­ Vadgaon. P.W.1, the complainant deposed about the application made by the applicant for taking admission in his school and the documents produced by him. He also stated as to how he found out that examination centre No.1103 for HSC Board Certificate examination was not in existence in Pune Division. The applicant had produced School Leaving Certificate issued by Arts, Science and Commerce Junior College, Ichalkaranji and the marklist of the 12th Standard of HSC board purported to have been received through Arts, Science and Commerce Junior College, Ichalkaranji. PW­1 stated that he had personally made enquiries with the authorities of Ichalkaranji College. He learnt that the said College had not issued School Leaving Certificate to the applicant and also that the applicant was never a student of that College. PW­2, the officer from B.Y. Yadav College­ cum­High School deposed that the applicant had in fact taken admission to his College. He had appeared for final examination for the 11th * 4 * Cri.Revn.Appln. 106.2011 8.3.2011 Standard from his Junior College and in the 12th Standard also, he was in the same College. The applicant was in that College for the whole year of the 12th Standard examination. He had filled up the form to appear for HSC board examination through that college. After the result of the examination, result sheet and marklist in respect of the applicant came to his College and the College had issued the same to the applicant. The applicant had failed in the 12th Standard examination as per result sheet and the marklist received from the board in March 1988. The College had issued the original marklist to the applicant and true copy thereof was retained with the College. PW­2 produced true copy of the marklist from the record of the College (Exhibit 20). Exhibit­20 shows that the applicant had failed in the 12th Standard examination. PW­2 deposed that the applicant had taken Leaving Certificate from his College. On the background of the above evidence, the Sessions Court also noted that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had in fact taken admission in Junior College at Ichalkaranji since June 1988 onwards, nor, there is any evidence to show that the applicant had appeared for the 12th Standard examination held in March 1989 through the Ichalkaranji College. 4. In view of the above clear evidence, the trial court convicted the applicant which conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court. No legal * 5 * Cri.Revn.Appln. 106.2011 8.3.2011 infirmity can be found with the judgment and order of the conviction by the Courts below. 5. Mrs. Tavanandi, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the main perpetrator of the offence i.e. accused no.2 who had caused forgery has been acquitted, the trial court and the lower appellate court could not have held the applicant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the applicant had cheated the complainant by inducing him and the authorities of Ambedkar College to admit him to the College on the basis of false documents. The applicant had used forged Leaving Certificate and the marklist as genuine documents for dishonest purposes. But for these documents, the applicant could not have secured admission to the Ambedkar College. In these circumstances, there is no merit whatsoever in the challenge to the concurrent findings of guilt by the Courts below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary powers as revisional Court to disturb the findings. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]