Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003 Date of Decision : 29.10.2010 Balraj Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T., Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. None for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Balraj Singh accused-appellant (herein referred as 'the accused') was convicted on the allegations of seeking admission in O.T. Class on the basis of forged certificate of Shastri examination. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. The appeal, preferred by him was dismissed by the Appellate Coaurt vide judgment dated 26.09.2003. In nutshell, the allegations are that Smt.Tajinder Malhotra (PW4), Principal, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh, filed a written complaint Ex.PW4/A on 05.03.1994 before Station House Officer, Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh, alleging therein that the accused had got admission in O.T. Class in their college by forging the original certificate of Shastri Examination, passed by him. On preliminary inquiry, it was established that though certificate of Shastri Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003 2 Examination was original but he had tempered the marks by increasing the same from 400 to 500 to make merit, as such, he sought the admission. The accused also made a confessional statement Ex.P7 before the Inquiry Officer. On the receipt of above complaint, formal FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered and the case was investigated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer had taken into possession application form Ex.P1, mark sheet Ex.P2, copy of matriculation certificate Ex.P3, copy of the disputed mark-sheet Ex.P4, another copy of mark sheet Ex.P5, the order Ex.P6 vide which his admission was cancelled, his confessional statement Ex.P7 and merit list of successful candidates Ex.P8. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. The accused was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. Record perused. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reliance could be placed on the alleged certificate Ex.P4 without bothering to get placed the original on the record. It was further urged that since genuineness of the document was only prime question, therefore, the copies should not have been accepted in evidence and the same could be accepted only after examining the original. None of the witnesses has stated Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003 3 that they had seen the original of Ex.P4, as such Ex.P4 could not be placed reliance to base the conviction of the accused. Having pondered over the contentions, the same are devoid of any merit. There is no dispute with the fact that the accused took admission on the basis of a certificate of Shastri Examination Ex.P4, containing his marks as 500. The record reveals that had he not tempered the certificate then he would not have obtained the admission. Overwhelming evidence has been led on the record in order to prove that the accused had converted his marks from 400 to 500. Smt. Sudarshan Malhotra, Superintendent, Certificate Branch, Punjab University, has made the statement from the original record that the accused had passed the Honours in Sanskrit (Shastri Part-II) in May 1992 at Roll No.542 and had obtained 400 marks out of 800. She has proved the original certificate on the file as Ex.PW1/A. A bare perusal of this certificate could reveal that the accused had obtained 400 marks out of 800 in Shastri examination. The accused produced the tempered photo copy of the original certificate in order to project that he had obtained 500 marks, thus the crux of the matter is that the accused tempered the document Ex.P4 in order to project that he had obtained 500 marks out of 800 whereas he actually obtained 400 marks and got admission in O.T.Class. As regards the argument that original certificate was not proved on the record, it would be significant to mention here that after clearing the examination, the accused was issued the original certificate, therefore, he was in possession of the same. If he wanted to rebut the prosecution case and wanted to project something different than what was said by the prosecution, he would have brought the original certificate on the record in Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003 4 order to show that he never tempered the original of Ex.P4 or Ex.P4 and he had actually received 500 marks and not 400 marks whereas the prosecution after examining the concerned officer of the Punjab University, has proved that the accused received only 400 marks and not 500 marks. Both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the accused prepared a forged document and on the basis of the same, he took the admission in O.T.Class in the college. Had he not tempered the certificate then he could not be granted admission. As such, both the Courts below were right in holding him guilty for the offence for which he had been charged. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, resulting into mis-carriage of justice or failure of justice. In the absence of any perversity in the impugned judgment, no adverse view than what has been taken by the First Appellate Court, could be formed. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.10.2010 mamta-II