Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 30, 2009 Krishan Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 10.8.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hisar. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 471 IPC . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (Dharampal-I) vide judgment dated 18.7.2002 . Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “Brief facts of this case are like this that a letter written by Dean Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 2 College of Veterinary Sciences CCS HAU, Hisar to the SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar regarding productin of bogus certificate by appellant-accused Krishan Kumar son of Laxmi Chand in which it was mentioned that when the documents were being verified of the candidates for admission to VLD diploma programme, it has come to the notice that the appellant-accused has produced bogus certificate and the certificate produced by the appellant-accused shows 454 marks as per detial given below:- Hindi 75 English 70 Mathematics 82 Social Science 70 Science 67 Sanskrit 90___ Total 454 And as per record available in the P.G.S.D. High School from where the student has passed the Matriculation examination he has secured 341 marks as per detail given below:- Hindi 74 English 48 Matehmatics 50 Social Science 47 Science 51 Sanskrit 71 _____ Total 341” Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to show that the signatures on the admission form were of the petitioner. PW1 Dr.B.D.Garg who is the Dean of the College appeared in the witness box and deposed that the petitioner has applied for VLD course vide form Exhibit PB. When the genuineness of matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner was got verified from PSGD High School, it was informed that the petitioner had, in fact, obtained only 341 marks,whereas Exhibit PC shows that he had obtained 454 marks. The statement of PW 1 is duly corroborated by PW2 Superintendent Gajanand Goel. PW3 Dr. D.K.Thakral has deposed that he was the member of the Selection Committee for the course and when the application of the petitioner came up for consideration, the certificate submitted by the petitioner Exhibit PC was suspected to be not genuine. In the present case, petitioner has applied for admission to VLD programme vide form Exhibit PB. The matriculation certificate attached with the form shows the marks of the petitioner as 454. The said certificate is Exhibit PC. However, it was found that in fact, the petitioner had obtained only 341 marks in his matriculation examination. A perusal of the form Exhibit PD reveals that the same is duly signed by the petitioner and also bears the photographs of the applicant/petitioner. Exhibit PC is the matriculation certificate showing the marks of the petitioner in matriculation examination as 454 out of 600 whereas Exhibit PW8/A of the matriculation certificate shows his marks as 341 out of 600. Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 4 There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never submitted the said application for admission. There was no occasion for any other person to apply on behalf of the petitioner by attaching a forged matriculation certificate. The only beneficiary was the petitioner. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 471 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a young boy of 17 years of age at the time of alleged offence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1992, it would be just and expedient, to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act,1958. Petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the petitioner shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the period of probation. The petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge April 30, 2009 arya Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2002 5