Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 Date of Decision: 22.2.2010 Kuldip Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sarbjeet Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Kuldip Singh, who was named as accused in case FIR No. 231 dated 16.12.1992, registered at Police Station Sadar, Batala, under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, who found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was also Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 2 dismissed. The FIR was registered on the basis of inquiry conducted by Madan Gopal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dera Baba Nanak. The allegation against the petitioner, in the FIR, is that he got himself recruited in the Punjab Police on 30.11.1989 as a Special Police Officer. At the time of recruitment, petitioner had produced Matriculation Certificate bearing Roll No. 146037. The said Matriculation Certificate was sent for verification to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, who reported that one Kamla Devi daughter of Kartar Singh had appeared in the examination against the roll number mentioned in the certificate and the date of birth of that candidate was 1.1.1964. The said candidate was declared to have obtained re-appear. Thus, the certificate produced by the petitioner was a forged one. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, on 15.3.1995 had framed charges against the petitioner. The first charge stated that in the year 1989, petitioner had forged Matriculation Certificate to get himself enrolled as a Constable in the Punjab Police and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 IPC. The second charge stated that he had used the forged certificate of Matriculation Certificate as genuine and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Darbara Singh, Superintendent, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, as PW.1. He stated that as per Roll Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 3 No. 146037, Kamla Devi daughter of Kartar Singh had appeared and certificate Ex.PA produced by the petitioner was not issued by the Board and was a forged document. PW.2 Hakumat Singh, Inspector, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, appeared as PW.2. He stated that in the year 1992, he was posted as Inspector, Anti Fraud Staff, and that he had partly investigated the case. PW.3 Ajit Singh, Head Constable, produced the record regarding the correspondence between Police Department and Punjab School Education Board. PW.4 Amarjit Singh, Sub Inspector, stated that he was present at the time of recruitment along with Mr. S.K. Goyal, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, when accused had produced the certificate of Matriculation Ex.PA. Kashmir Kaur, Teacher from Government Middle School, Gokhuwal, appeared as PW.5. She stated that Kuldip Singh remained student of School from 1978 to 31.3.1980. He had appeared in the Matriculation examination and was declared fail. PW.6 Madan Gopal, Superintendent of Police, at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dera Baba Nanak, and had conducted the inquiry in which it surfaced that the certificate produced by the petitioner was false and a forged one. PW.7 Balwinder Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, had produced the record of recruitment of the police officials. PW.8 Rakesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, Head Clerk from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, had proved Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 4 the signatures of Rohit Chaudhary, Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala. He stated that he was posted as a Steno and was conversant with the signatures of the Senior Superintendent of Police. Amrinder Singh, Joint Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, appeared as PW.9 and has also stated that in the inquiry Matriculation Certificate Ex.PA was found false. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed innocence. Mr. Sarbjeet Khaira, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that it has nowhere come that Matriculation Certificate Ex.PA was submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had not used any forged certificate. Counsel further submitted that for appointment of Special Police Officer, qualification of matriculation was not required. This argument cannot be accepted. From the record, it is apparent that inquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service as he was not a matriculate. His order of appointment has been proved as Ex.PD. Though the prosecution has not placed on record the appointment letter and the application form submitted by the petitioner, from which it can be inferred that the petitioner had made a wrong representation, yet from the inquiry and evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established that nobody else can be beneficiary of the certificate Ex.PA except the petitioner. Hence, there is no ground to disturb the findings recorded by the two Courts below. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certificate was Criminal Revision No. 2517 of 2003 5 submitted by the petitioner on 30.11.1989. A period of 20 years has already elapsed. The petitioner is in the corridors of the Court for the last two decades. Therefore, the fact that petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Taking these submissions of counsel for the petitioner into consideration, this Court is of the view that sentence of one year imprisonment awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to eight months rigorous imprisonment. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine and the default clause are maintained. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 22, 2010 “DK”