THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.82 OF 2009 ORDER:- The Accused No.1 in C.C.No.338 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur was convicted for an offence under Sections.468, 420, 471 and 419 IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default to undergo S.I for one week each for the offences under Sections.468 and 420 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Sections.471 and 419 IPC. Further, it was directed all the four sentences shall run concurrently. As per the case of the prosecution, the revision petitioner with the assistance of Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are Principal and Director of Vani Junior College, Vinukonda sent an application for nominating as a scrutinizer to the spot valuation of Intermediate Examinations at Junior College for Girls, Guntur during the month of March-2006 in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav and on such recommendation made by A-2 and A-3, the revision petitioner was appointed for the purpose of scrutinizing the Intermediate examination papers on 26-03-2006. PW.1 who is said to be the Regional Inspecting Officer has inspected the centre and he was informed about the unauthorised presence of the persons at the time of corrections and consequently the revision petitioner was called to the room of the Principal and when he was questioned he replied that he has come in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav and earlier he worked as a Lecturer in Commerce at Junior College, Vinukonda and thereafter he claims to have been nominated by Accused Nos.2 and 3. A complaint was sent to the police and the police after due investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and after considering the evidence on record, the revision petitioner/Accused No.1 found guilty for the offences under Sections.468, 419, 420 and 471 IPC. The lower court found Accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the offences and acquitted them. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.1 has impersonated as Udiga Chandrajit Yadav and attended the spot valuation centre and scrutinized the papers? 2. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below for an offence under Sections.468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC is sustainable? POINTS:- From the evidence available on record, the evidence of PW.1 who is the Regional Inspecting Officer shows that when he went to the spot valuation centre in the Government Junior College for Girls, Guntur he was informed about the unauthorised persons and thereafter he called the revision petitioner at about 1.00 P.M and made enquiries and revision petitioner has given information that he came in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav and he also produced the necessary documents which are Ex.P-2 letter and Ex.P-3 appointment order issued by the Board of Intermediate Education. He also claims to have called the Principal and also the other persons who are present there. The Sub-Inspector of Police was said to have been called. PWs.2 to 4 in whose presence the Accused No.1 is said to have been called by PW.1 to the room of the Principal did not support the prosecution case about the Accused No.1 giving a confession but their evidence goes to show that the presence of the Accused No.1 in the room of the Principal along with PW.1. The important evidence of PW.5 goes to show that he has seen the revision petitioner attending the spot valuation in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav as a Scrutinizer on the day when he also attended the spot valuation. He also claims that PW.1 called Accused No.1 into the offence and there A-1 has disclosed the truth. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is a variation in the evidence of PW.1, PW.5 and also PWs.2 to 4 about the time when Accused No.1 was called into the room of Principal and there being doubt about their statements and when the benefit of doubt has been given to Accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of the revision petitioner is not proper. The question to be determined in this revision is as to whether the petitioner has attended the examination centre in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav with the identity card Ex.P-3? In fact this Ex.P-3 was taken by PW.1 and the evidence of PW.5 and PW.1 clearly goes to show that the revision petitioner has gained entry into the Girls College where papers were being scrutinized. Therefore, but for the impersonation under Ex.P-3, the revision petitioner could not have entered into the premises. Even the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 does not rule out the presence of the revision petitioner in the room of the Principal. There could not have any possibility of unauthorised persons entered into the examination hall but for the production of Ex.P-3 identity card. The Accused No.1 being in possession of Ex.P-3 in the name of Udiga Chandrajit Yadav clearly goes to show that it is a case where the revision petitioner has impersonated in the name of the said person and entered into the premises. The offence under Section.419 IPC is therefore squarely made out. But so far as the other offences under Sections.468, 471 are concerned, it is quite clear that even according to the prosecution case the recommendation was made by A-3 on the influence of A-2 and the recommendation made by A-3 knowingly that the petitioner is not Udiga Chandrajit Yadav. Therefore, any offence of fraud or fabrication if at all done is not by the revision petitioner but it can be only at the instance of Accused Nos.2 and 3. Evidently, on the recommendations of A-3 only the Board has nominated and cleared the name of the revision petitioner for attending the scrutiny of the examination papers. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, he cannot be said to have forged the document nor used any forged document as a genuine one. The document Ex.P-3 was issued by the Intermediate Board on the recommendations of A-3. Therefore, the question of forgery does not arise and is only case of impersonation by giving false information by other accused and the collusion of A-3 is quite clear. It is not a case where the prosecution has stated that even the recommendation made by A-3 is fabricated one. It is the specific case of the prosecution that at the instance of A-2, A-3 has recommended the name of the respondent petitioner for the purpose of nomination. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the punishment of the accused No.1/revision petitioner for the other offences does not arise and consequently the conviction of revision petitioner for the offences except one for an offence under Section.419 IPC are set aside. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in order to have some earning, as he was not employed, the respondent petitioner has resorted to the act of impersonation. Evidently, there is no material on record to show that by virtue of gaining entry by impersonation, the revision petitioner has forged anybody or taken advantage of it in scrutinizing the papers. Therefore, a lenient view can be taken. I feel ends of justice would meet if a fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed apart from treating the period of imprisonment already undergone as a sentence. In default of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part while confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section.419 IPC. The period of sentence already undergone by the revision petitioner is treated as a period of imprisonment and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six(6) months. The other convictions and sentences are set aside. The revision petitioner is directed to remit the fine within a period of one (1) month from this day, failing which the lower court shall take steps for apprehension of the revision petitioner/ Accused No.1. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 23-11-2011 TSNR