In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.489 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:10.3.2009 Gurmit Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Gurmit Kaur against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa was modified to the extent that the petitioner it was ordered shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months instead of three years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 467 (sic. - 468 IPC) Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and similarly the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years to six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. Both the sentences, however, it was ordered shall run concurrently. The petitioner was sent-up for trial on the allegations that the Matriculation certificate which she had submitted for recruitment as Lady Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [2] Constable was found to be false. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police. For the said purpose, she had produced her Matriculation certificate on record. During verification of the same, it was found to be bogus. Accordingly, the present case was registered against her for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record held the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. She was accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 468 IPC besides to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine it was ordered that she would undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa upheld the conviction of the petitioner, however, reduced the period of sentence for the offence under Section 467 IPC (sic. - Section 468 IPC) from three years to nine months and for the offence under Section 471 IPC from two years to six months. Both the sentences, it was ordered, shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Courts below did not consider the actual and factual position of the case. In fact, the prosecution has totally failed to establish and prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. It is submitted that the petitioner never Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [3] committed any forgery and she properly participated in the examination. The certificate that she produced was issued to her as per rules and regulations and if there was any lapse in the maintenance of record regarding allotment of the roll numbers, issuance of certificate etc., the same is on the part of the authorities of the Board of School Education, Haryana. It is submitted that it is not a case where the petitioner has fabricated the basic form or that she tampered or marked wrong serial number on the proforma of the certificate. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa is liable to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted. In any case, it is submitted that the sentence of imprisonment that has been imposed is unduly harsh and the petitioner is liable to be given the benefit of probation or, in any case, her sentence reduced. Learned counsel for the State, however, has submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently held the petitioner to be guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC which warrants no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has already reduced the sentence of imprisonment considerably and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. Therefore, the revision petition merits dismissal. The records of the case were requisitioned which have been received. The process for recruitment of Constables in the Haryana Police was initiated. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 15.7.1996 (Ex.PA) addressed to the Secretary, Board of School Education, Haryana sent a list of candidates who had recently been recruited as Constables in District Sirsa on the basis of educational certificates issued by the Board of Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [4] School Education, Haryana. It was stated that keeping in view the fact that some cases of bogus educational certificates had been detected in the recent past it was decided to get the educational certificates verified to ensure their genuineness. Therefore, it was requested that the certificates of the Constables may be verified from the office record and it be confirmed whether these were genuine or otherwise. A list of 17 Constables was sent. The name of the petitioner-Gurmit Kaur is at serial No.6 of the said list. The Board of School Education, Haryana vide its letter dated 9.8.1996 (Ex.PW.2/A) informed the Police Chief, Sirsa regarding the verification of the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner. It was informed that on verification of the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner that Roll No.190218 which is on the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner was not allotted to any candidate in the April 1991 examination in District Sirsa. Therefore, the Matriculation certificate (Ex.PW.3/A) of the petitioner was bogus. The Matriculation certificate (Ex.PW.3/A) mentions the roll No. of the petitioner as 190218 and that she appeared in the Matriculation examination conducted by the Board of School Education, Haryana in March 1991, besides it shows that she had passed in the second division. However, the said certificate (Ex.PW.3/A) has been found to be bogus. Accordingly, FIR (Ex.PW.4/A) was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Nirender Kumar, Record Keeper, SP Office, Sirsa (PW-1), Mohinder Pratap Bakshi, Deputy Secretary, Education Board, Bhiwani (PW-2), Ram Chander, ASI, SP Office, Sirsa (PW-3), Ravi Dutt, SI/SHO (PW-4). The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [5] Mohinder Pratap Bakshi, Deputy Secretary, Education Board, Bhiwani (PW-2) appeared with the relevant record. He stated that on verification of the Matriculation certificate bearing the number as given by the petitioner was not issued by the Board of School Education Haryana. The roll number mentioned in the certificate was not allotted in Sirsa District and the certificate in question was found bogus. The certificate (Ex.PW.3/A) which the petitioner had submitted at the time of her recruitment as Lady Constable is on record and it bears Roll No.190218 of District Sirsa. The records of the Board of School Education, Haryana show that the said roll number was not issued to any examinee of District Sirsa. In this regard, the Board of School Education, Haryana had written a letter dated 9.8.1996 (Ex.PW.2/A) to the Police Chief, Sirsa. The said letter has been proved on record by Mohinder Pratap Bakshi, Deputy Secretary, Education Board, Bhiwani (PW-2). The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record found the petitioner to be guilty of the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. She was accordingly convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 468 IPC besides to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 471 IPC. In the event of default of payment of fine the petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and material on record found no merit in the same. The sentence of imprisonment, however, was reduced for the offence under Section 467 IPC (sic. - Section 468 IPC) from three years rigorous imprisonment to nine Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [6] months. Similarly, the sentence of imprisonment of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC was reduced to six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation that the petitioner had fabricated the basic form or the certificate, the signatures of the Secretary on that certificate or she tampered or marked wrong serial number on the proforma of the certificate, is baseless and devoid of merit. The petitioner was the only person who was to get benefit by producing the bogus certificate. Therefore, it was for her to explain as to how the said certificate came in her possession. Both the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence and material on record have held the petitioner to be guilty. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. The jurisdiction, however, is supervisory and is to be exercised for correcting miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction is not to be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated as a second appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion on the same when evidence has already been appreciated by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no glaring feature that has been brought to the notice of this Court which can be said to tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference in the conviction of the petitioner is warranted. It may, however, be noticed that the petitioner is a lady and she has sought recruitment in the Police force as Lady Constable on the basis of Cr. Rev. No.489 of 2009 [7] forged certificate. Her conduct in resorting to this process indeed is not appreciable. As such she is not entitled to the benefit of probation but nevertheless ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of nine months for the offence under Section 468 IPC is reduced to six months while keeping intact the sentence of imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 471 IPC and also the imposition of fine and the default clause in the event of non-payment of fine. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 468 IPC is reduced from nine months to six months, however, the sentence of six months for the offence under Section 471 IPC as also that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently shall remain intact as they are. With the reduction in the sentence for the offence under Section 468 IPC, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. March 10, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*