IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.798 of 2008 Between: State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor. ... Appellant AND Ganta Nobel ... Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 798 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by judgment, dated 19.01.2007, in C.C.No.221 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, ﬁled a charge sheet in Crime No.165 of 2003, alleging that the accused, the Principal of St. Marks College of Education, Mandasa, Srikakulam District, was alleged to have produced a false and forged service certiﬁcate as if he worked in Siddardha B.Ed, College, Kavali from 26.06.1987 to 24.08.1998, while he worked in Siddardha B.Ed. College, Kavali, only from 01.05.1987 to 30.01.1989 only as a Lecturer. The submission of such certiﬁcate to the National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore, was cheating without his having suﬃcient teaching experience of ten years as per the prescribed norms and standards. The accused was Secretary-cum-Correspondent of M/s. G.R.K.Ratnam Memorial Educational Society, for which Kumari Vandara Vandana was the Treasurer, Vandara Hemalatha was the President and Vandara Paul Himamsu was the Correspondent-cum-Secretary. The accused, in control of the Management of the Society, is the brother of Vandara Hemalatha and after removal of the accused for his misdeeds from the post of Secretary-cum- Correspondent of the society, the selection of the accused as a Principal to the college was found to be based on the false certiﬁcate. Hence, Kumari Vandara Vandana ﬁled a complaint before the Court, which was forwarded to the police for investigation. On registration of the crime, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized a xerox copy of false and forged service certiﬁcate and the Correspondent of Siddardha College, Kavali, Sri N. Krishna Murthy denied issuing the service certiﬁcate. The accused was arrested and remanded to custody during investigation and hence, the charge. 3. On the Court taking cognizance of the oﬀences and the accused appearing before it, the accused was furnished copies of the documents. When he was examined and charges were framed against him under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty and during trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no defence evidence was produced on his behalf. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that all the members of the Society in question are related to each other and that P.Ws.2 and 3 did not depose about Ex.P.5-Service Certiﬁcate at all, which was allegedly submitted by the accused, apart from non- production of any document show that P.W.1 was acting as a Treasurer of the Society in question. The trial Court also found that the norms and standards for Teacher Education Institutions prescribed by the University Grants Commission were a Postgraduate Degree in Education with ten years of experience in Teaching and Research / Administration, out of which, at least ﬁve years should relate to Teacher Education. The trial Court found that Emanuel College of Education issued the service certiﬁcate showing that he worked from 01.12.1999 to 12.04.2003 as a Lecturer. Then he worked as a Lecturer in Siddardha College of Education from 01.05.1987 to 30.01.1989. He also had research experience in Andhra University from 01.03.1989 to 30.09.1992. He was an Administrative Oﬃcer in Sai Residential Junior College from 01.06.1993 to 30.03.1997. As such, the total service of the accused as a Lecturer or as an Administrative Oﬃcer or as a Researcher was twelve years six months and twelve days which is suﬃcient qualiﬁcation as per the norms of the University Grants Commission. The accused being a Ph.D is not in dispute and Ex.P.5 being produced by him before National Council for Teacher Education or any other authority, hence, was improbable. The trial Court also considered that as per the norms of National Council for Teacher Education also, the accused satisﬁed the qualiﬁcation of having a Master’s degree in education and ten years of experience in teaching, Research and Administration, out of which ﬁve years should pertain to Teacher Education. The prosecution was noted to have ﬁled no document to show the status of St. Marks College of Education as a private college or as a Government College and the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 was seen to be not referring to the production of any fake document by the accused. The evidence of P.W.7 was referred to as showing that any certiﬁcate should have been sent by the accused only through Andhra University and not directly and the trial Court also found that material witnesses were also not examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason. Noting that Ex.P.5 is only a xerox copy and that the evidence of P.W.8 did not indicate the seizure of any document as per the prescribed procedure, the trial Court was of the opinion that without proving Ex.P.5 as a forged document, the question of using such document does not arise for consideration. The trial Court also found that in the absence of any seizure of Ex.P.5 before mediators and in the absence of proof of custody of the original or production of it, the accused cannot be considered to be the author of Ex.P.5 or that he used any forged document with a dishonest intention of cheating the authorities of the National Council for Teacher Education. For proof of forgery, either oral evidence of persons who should have seen the committal of forgery or documentary evidence with regard to such forgery are required which are absent and, therefore, the trial Court concluded that prosecution miserably failed to prove the oﬀences alleged against the accused, more so, as the Andhra University or the National Council for Teacher Education would not have appointed the accused as a Principal without being satisﬁed about his eligibility. The accused was, therefore, acquitted. 5. The State, through the learned Public Prosecutor, preferred the present appeal contending that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 471 of IPC have been satisfactorily proved by the evidence for the prosecution and more particularly, by P.Ws.1 to 9 and, hence, the judgment of acquittal is desired to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor / the appellant and Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether there is proof of committal of the oﬀences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of the acquittal by the trial Court. 8. P.W.1 claimed to have found Ex.P.5 allegedly signed as a true copy in the records and she claimed that the accused informed about sending such certiﬁcates to the National Council for Teacher Education. She consequently tried to claim the Society to have incurred losses by payment of salary and allowances to the accused, which cannot be true when the accused performed the duties of his oﬃce during that period admittedly and no deﬁciency in his services has even alleged. Her evidence disclosed that the accused and P.W.1 and her family are closely related and were involved in disputes leading to even criminal cases between them at the instance of each other. Extremely strained relationship, as stated by P.W.1, should put the Court on guard before accepting such interested evidence at face value without satisfactory independent corroboration. While P.W.1 did not admittedly see the original of Ex.P.5, even P.W.2 claimed his knowledge about the accused allegedly producing a false certiﬁcate to be only after P.W.1 assumed charge as a Treasurer. P.W.2 admitted that he does not know whether the accused produced any false certiﬁcate before Andhra University and that he had no personal knowledge about production of false certiﬁcate about which his counsel had informed. Similarly, P.W.3 also did not speak anything about any personal knowledge of the accused creating or using any forged certiﬁcate. While the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 showed the disputes between the accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 to have resulted in a number of mutual complaints and criminal cases, the evidence of P.W.4 about issuing Ex.P.1-service certiﬁcate about his working in Emmanuel College of Education has no relevance to the allegations herein. 9. P.W.5 was positive that any selection will be only after enquiry and observation of the qualiﬁcation of the candidates and P.W.6 also similarly stated about the ﬁnalization of list of merit candidates. P.W.6 stated that the accused did not produce any document relating to him and the Deputy Registrar of Andhra University as P.W.7 stated that he never stated to the police that the accused has produced a false service certiﬁcate of Siddardha College, Kavali, to the National Council for Teacher Education. He does not even remember whether police examined him or enquired him. This evidence of P.W.7 further shows that Ex.P.3 particulars relating to the service of the accused were issued from his office. 10. The Investigating Oﬃcer as P.W.8 admitted that the accused is holding a P.h.D degree. He also admitted that as per Exs.P.1 and P.3, the accused was teacher for more than ﬁve years three months. He has no knowledge whether the accused worked as Administrative Oﬃcer in Sai Residential College in Vizianagaram. He also does not know whether Ex.P.5 does not contain the signature of the accused or whether he never produced Ex.P.5 before anybody. He also admitted that the authorities of Siddadha College did not give any report to the police about the accused producing a false certiﬁcate. The Andhra University or the National Council for Teacher Education also similarly did not give any report to the police even according to the evidence of P.W.8. P.W.8 did not state about any eﬀort made by him to trace the original of Ex.P.5 or to have Ex.P.5 examined by any expert with reference to the hand writing of the accused or otherwise. 11. The evidence of P.W.9 claiming that Ex.P.6 was signed by his father-in-law and Ex.P.5 was not signed by him does not lead the prosecution anywhere, as P.W.9 admitted that he did not know about the alleged forgery of Ex.P.5. When the original of Ex.P.5 was not traced or placed before the Court and when Ex.P.5-xerox copy was not proved by any evidence either to have been forged and signed by or at the instance of the accused or produced by the accused before anybody, the evidence on record could not have been considered suﬃcient to prove the oﬀences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC against him. 12. When the accused was admittedly otherwise qualiﬁed as Principal and had no necessity to create any false certiﬁcate and when Ex.P.5 was claimed to have been dug out from the records by P.W.1, with P.Ws.1 to 3 having every reason to implicate the accused even without any basis, any suspicion arising out of Ex.P.5 could not have been equated to proof beyond reasonable doubt and under the circumstances, the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court could not have been interfered with. 13. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 25, 2011 YVL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 819 of 2008 & 853 of 2009 Date: 17th November, 2011 KL