Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : October 29, 2010 Suraj Parkash ... Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Aditya Sanghi, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. None for the respondent – UT Chandigarh. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Suraj Parkash – accused – petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 9.8.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh partly accepting the appeal and acquitting him of the charges under Sections 466 and 467 IPC, while maintaining the conviction under Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, awarded vide judgment dated 16.8.2002 passed by Judicial Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. The case relates to the sale of forged blank form, purported to be used for the purpose of issuing the degree by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The factual matrix of the case is that on 5.11.2001, Sub- Inspector Bhupinder Singh was present in the market of Sector-15, Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] Chandigarh, where a secret informer confided with him that the accused was involved in sale of fake degrees of B.A. and B.Ed. of Panjab University Chandigarh. He was roaming around the market of Sector-14 and could be arrested red-handed. Believing the information to be reliable, Sub- Inspector Bhupinder Singh appointed Ashok Kumar as bogus customer and handed over to him a sum of Rs.500/- with a direction to hand-over the same to the accused in lieu of the sale of a fake degree. Assistant Sub- Inspector Surinder Kumar was appointed as shadow witness. As planned, Ashok Kumar met the accused, introduced himself as old student of Panjab University and expressed his desire to purchase a B.A. Degree certificate, so that he could secure a job. The accused agreed and also offered him concession if the detailed marks certificate was also to be purchased by him, which Ashok Kumar told the accused that he could pay Rs.500/- only at that time against purchase of the degree and that he would visit him later for getting filled up the blank columns of the degree and then he would purchase detail marks certificate also. However, the accused agreed to receive the amount on the promise that Ashok Kumar would come after 4/5 days after arranging money. On this, Ashok Kumar handed over the currency note of Rs.500/-, who reciprocated after taking out a blank degree out of the pocket of his pent and kept the note in the chest pocket of the shirt. In the meantime, Assistant Sub-Inspector Surinder Kumar signalled Sub-Inspector Bhupinder Singh to come at the spot. During investigation, it was revealed that the certificate/degree recovered from the accused was not genuine. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court. Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] The accused was charged under Sections 467, 468, and 474 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sub-Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW4), who reiterated the prosecution version and proved the recovery of currency note Ex.P8 from the accused, which he had handed over to Ashok Kumar. He also proved the recovery memo Ex.P9 in this regard. Ex.P3 and P4 are the blank degrees and detailed marks cards, which were recovered from Ashok Kumar and the accused, respectively and taken into possession vide memo Ex.P10 and P11. Ashok Kumar, bogus punter (PW5) supported the prosecution version by towing to the line of the Investigating Officer. ASI Surinder Kumar (PW6) is the shadow witness. P.K.Gupta, (PW2), Deputy Registrar, Panjab University testified that the accused is an employee of the Panjab University. The degree Ex.P3 and certificate Ex.P4, on analysis in the Department of Controller of Examination were neither found to be printed in the University nor even issued by the University. The paper used for printing Ex.P3 and P4 is different from the one being used by the University press. Water marks are missing in Ex.P3 and P4. This witness proved his report Ex.P6. MHC Jaspal Singh (PW3) is a formal witness. Sub- Inspector Balwan Singh (PW1) is a recovery witness. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] While opening the arguments, it was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that even if all the facts, as referred to by the prosecution are taken as correct, even then no offence under Section 474 IPC is made out. He has also reiterated that the Apex Court has settled in case Shaikh Noor Mohamad Shaikh Fazal vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1981 SC 297 that educational testimonials are not valuable securities and the prosecution has failed to prove if the document sold to Ashok Kumar was actually a forged document and he had forged the same. It was a printed material in all respects and not a genuine stolen document, to be used after forging the same. I have gone through the documents Ex.P3 and P4, which are simply the forms. Ex.P3 is shown as a form for preparing a graduate degree and Ex.P4 is a blank form for preparing a detailed marks certificate of B.A.IIIrd year. These documents do not bear the original signatures, rather it appears to be a carbon copy of some original document. Similar is the position of document Ex.P4. It is well-settled by now that carbon copies of the documents are inadmissible in evidence and no conviction could be maintained on the basis of carbon copies of the documents, without producing their original. Further more, without fulfilling the contents in the documents, they could not be treated as documents themselves. The Deputy Registrar (PW2) has appeared in the Court and stated that neither the documents are signed by the competent authority, nor issued by the University. Therefore, it would be difficult to bring these documents within the ambit of fake documents. To bring the offence within the provisions of Section 474 IPC, Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] the prosecution has to prove the following essentials:- (i)that the accused committed forgery of a document or electronic record; (ii)that such forged document or electronic record was in possession of the accused; (iii)that the accused had knowledge about such forgery; (iv)that the accused had an intention to use it fraudulently and dishonestly as genuine; and (v)the document must be one of the description mentioned in Sections 466 and 467. In the case in hand, since the accused has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 466 and 467 IPC, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution was successful in proving the forgery of the document and that the accused had forged the document. The accused did not fulfill these documents. These were merely forms and even not original forms, but only carbon copies. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as documents, which might be used fraudulently and dishonestly to get any benefit from any institution. Had the accused filled these documents and sold the same showing that these were the degrees of the University or an Institution, then the accused could be said to have used the same dishonestly and fraudulently, but the sale of the blank carbon copies of the original may incite this Court to hold that the accused could be said to have cheated the complainant, but in the present circumstances, it would be difficult to hold that he had committed an offence within the purview of Section 474 IPC. Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2005(O&M) [ 6 ] The trial court has not taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the impugned judgment has been rendered as perverse and passed on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence. Consequently, this petition is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside and the accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The bail bond and surety bond, furnished by him, stand discharged. Fine, if any, deposited by him be refunded. Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim the fee, as per Rules. October 29, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE