IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 298 of 2003 Date of decision: 16.07.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Nirmala Devi Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No.. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated 31.3.2003 vide which he set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2) Poanta Sahib dated 4.9.2001 holding the respondent guilty of the charge under Section 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.500/-. She was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and 8 months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 201 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as alleged by the prosecution, are that an application was received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, in which it was alleged that the respondent has appeared in an interview of Angan Bari and produced a fake School Leaving Certificate and Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. obtained the service in Gram Panchayat Kota Pab, Angan Bari Centre. It was alleged that her 5th Class School Leaving Certificate was fake one in which she was shown as passed in 5th Class but in fact she had failed and she had given a false certificate in the interview. It was also alleged that she also attended both the interviews conducted by the department in the year 1994-95 and in the year 1995, she was appointed and her age was also less. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was lodged and after investigation the challan was filed and she was tried by the learned trial Court leading to her conviction as detailed above. On appeal, her conviction was set aside and she was acquitted of the charges as mentioned above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the record, it is clear that the first point for consideration was as to whether the respondent made a false document showing that she was 5th pass, though she had failed in the 5th Class. The second point to be considered was that she produced false School Leaving Certificate with her knowledge that it was false to secure job and as such, she had committed the offence in question. 5. In the present case, the prosecution has placed on record Ex.PW-5/A, a photo copy of the application submitted to CDPO for appointment to the post of Angan Bari worker and she alleged that she was 5th pass. In case this document was incorrect, she could be held liable for the offence. However, before she could be held guilty it had to be proved that the application was presented to the department and it was bearing her signatures. The original application filed before the CDPO bearing her signatures was required to be proved and the document Ex.PW-5/A was proved on record which does not prove that the original application was submitted bearing her signature. The allegation was that she produced a photo-copy of School Leaving Certificate Ex.PD which was showing as passed in 5th Class and the marks were also shown therein but it was false as per the record. Further, the original of the School Leaving Certificate was never produced on record to show that she had made forgery in the School Leaving Certificate. There is nothing on record to show that this School Leaving Certificate, photo copy of which is Ex.PD, was produced by her along with her application. This stood established that she was not 5th pass as per the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, but the fact remains that there is nothing on record that the false certificate bore her signatures or that the copy of the School Leaving Certificate produced by her was forged by her. 6. The learned trial Court had convicted the respondent holding her guilty of the offences with which she was charged. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and acquitted the respondent of the charges. 7. In view of the above discussion and the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the appeal was liable to be accepted and the conviction imposed upon the respondent was set aside, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. July 16, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (SDS) Judge