-1- Criminal Revision No.67 of 2004. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.67 of 2004. Date of Decision: March 04, 2010. Manjeet Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Manjeet Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code -2- Criminal Revision No.67 of 2004. (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). On each count, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court was partly allowed by the lower appellate Court inasmuch as his conviction and sentence under Section 468 of the Code was set aside and, instead, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 471 read with Section 465 and Section 420 of the Code and on each count sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/-. Hence this appeal by the petitioner. I have heard Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, amicus curiae, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner, while being inducted into G.R.P on 18.6.1991, had produced Matriculation Certificate showing wrong date of birth as 15.10.1969 whereas, in fact, on verification of the records of Punjab School Education Board, his date of birth was found as 15.4.1967. Labh Singh (P.W.1), Senior Assistant Secretary (Retd.), Punjab School Education Board, deposed that on 2.9.1994, he was posted on the seat meant for verification of certificates. He stated that Certificate Bearing Sr. No.280958, Roll No.815943 relating to petitioner Manjeet Singh was received by him for verification. The said certificate is Exhibit P.A. In -3- Criminal Revision No.67 of 2004. the Certificate (Exhibit P.A), the date of birth was changed from 15.4.1967 to 15.10.1969. He proved record (Exhibit P.B) in this regard. He further deposed that all other particulars except the date of birth were correct in the certificate (Exhibit P.A). He also identified the signatures of Tara Singh Hundal, the then Secretary of the Punjab School Education Board on the certificate (Exhibit P.A). Jaspal Singh (P.W.2), who had brought the records of the concerned School, proved the date of birth of the appellant mentioned in the records of the School as 15.4.1967. It is always true that as and when a form for Matriculation is sent by a Candidate through School in which he studies, the date of birth available in the records of the school is mentioned in the form filled for entry in the Matriculation examination. The petitioner, thus, dishonestly forged his date of birth in his Matriculation Certificate and used the same as a genuine document for the purpose of securing job as a Constable in the G.R.P. He has, thus, rightly been convicted by the Courts below. In view of the above, conviction of the appellant under Section 471 read with Section 465 and Section 420 of the Code, as recorded by the lower appellate is upheld. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for about two and a half months. Keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than sixteen years as the matter relates to October, 1993, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offences -4- Criminal Revision No.67 of 2004. under Section 471 read with Section 465 and Section 420 of the Code is reduced to the period already undergone by him without altering the sentence of fine as imposed by the lower appellate Court. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. March 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE