IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. P (M). No. 171 of 2009 Date of decision: 19. 3. 2009 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Brij Lal ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . Yes For the petitioner: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General. For respondent None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard. The respondent was tried for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly for tampering with the copy of the School Leaving Certificate with respect to his date of birth, from 4.4.1933 to 4.4.1944, at the time when he was regularized as a labourer in the Horticulture Department. During the investigation of this case, the copy of the original School Leaving Certificate Ext. PW-6/A was taken into possession wherein his date of birth was recorded 4.4.1933. The alleged copy of the tampered certificate was not produced before the court during the trial except its photocopy Mark-A which remained unproved.Although On the strength of the aforesaid 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - evidence, he was convicted by the learned trial court but acquitted in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that the copy of the School Leaving Certificate alleged to have been tampered by the respondent, was not produced during the trial of the case to prove the offence against him. I have gone through the judgments passed by the courts below. I do not find that there is any direct or circumstantial evidence showing the tampering of the certificate aforesaid by the respondent, more specifically in absence of the original document which is alleged to have been tampered. Even on the basis of Mark-A, the copy of certificate, no opinion of the expert was obtained at least to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. The prosecution also did not produce any witness who could have thrown light on the facts, as alleged in the case against him. Therefore, the reversal of the judgment of conviction into acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted, as such leave to appeal is refused, the petition dismissed. March 19, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)