Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 Date of decision:22.01.2010 Sucha Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Argued By: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajaib Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. Having lost the legal battle in the courts below, Sucha Singh- convict-petitioner(hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner) has directed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.1999 of the trial Court, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 468/471 IPC and the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2002 vide which the lower Appellate Court has dismissed his appeal as well, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. 2. The compendium of the prosecution story as unfolded during the trial, is that on 24.10.1990, the petitioner was enlisted/appointed as Constable in 13th Battalion of PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. and he produced the Matriculation Certificate before the authorities at the relevant time of Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 2 recruitment. His educational certificate was sent for verification to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, and the same was found to be fake. Accordingly, the Commandant of the concerned Battalion referred the matter vide letter (Exhibit PW4/A) to the SSP, Jalandhar, for registration of the case. Consequently, on 14.05.1993, a formal FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Jalandhar Cantt. The inquiry/investigation was carried out by PWs ASI Partap Singh, SI Harjit Singh and ASI Piara Singh. According to the prosecution, the petitioner fabricated and used the forged educational/matriculation certificate(as genuine) and illegally secured the job of a Constable. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations in all, according to the prosecution, that the petitioner forged and used the fabricated matriculation certificate (as genuine) and illegally secured the job of a Constable in PAP Jalandhar. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against him on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Jalandhar Cantt. in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide order dated 08.04.1994 by the trial Court in the following manner:- "(i) That before 24.10.1990, you forged a matriculation certificate intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC within my cognizance; (ii) That secondly; on 24.10.1990, in the area of P.A.P. Complex, Jalandhar, you fradulently or dishonestly used as genuine a forged matriculation Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 3 certificate which you knew or have reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the above said charge." 5. As the petitioner did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 6. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner, examined PW1-Head Constable Bhishan Dutt, who stated that on 19.08.1993, he moved an application to obtain the original record pertaining to the certificate of the petitioner from Darbara Singh, Supdt. in Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, who in turn made the report (Mark 'A') based on the original record and attached the photostat copy of Gazettee of the result (Mark 'B'). He (PW-1) recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 further maintained that on 07.09.1993 he went to High School of Village Chhader, District Amritsar. The Headmaster after verifying the record made report (Mark 'C') and stated that one Ashwani Kumar s/o Kishori Lal appeared in Matriculation Examination against Roll No.237915. 7. PW-2 Darbara Singh, Superintendent Punjab School Education Board also testified that in the wake of letter No.4306 dated 19.04.1991, he verified the record with regard to the candidature of petitioner Sucha Singh s/o Darshan Singh vide Roll No.237915. On verification, report (Exhibit P2) was sent to the Commandant, 13th Battalion Jalandhar. He also produced copy of the Gazettee of relevant result of Roll No.237915. He also proved report (Exhibit P3) which would suggest that the matriculation certificate produced before the police authorities by the petitioner, was fake. 8. The evidence of PW-3 Navtej Singh, Inspector is to the effect Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 4 that record of recruitment of the Constables of 13th Battalion was in his custody and on 01.06.1993 he handed over the recruitment form (Mark 'A') and formal order pertaining to petitioner Sucha Singh to the police, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exhibit PW-3/A). It may be added here that the application form of petitioner was marked (Mark 'A') and its admissibility into evidence was left open to be decided at the time of the argument. The trial Court also accepted the applicaton form (Mark 'A') into evidence and convicted the petitioner. PW-3 also proved the formal order of appointment of the accused (Exhibit PW3/B). 9. The next to note the testimony of PW4-Rakesh Kumar Tewari, who remained posted as CRC in 13th Battalion PAP from 1986 to 1994 and was the custodian of the recruitment record of the employees of the Battalion. According to him, the petitioner was enlisted/enrolled on 19.04.1990 in his Battalion and he has proved order (Exhibit PW4/A). He maintained that the police took into possession the relevant documents vide recovery memo (Exhibit PW4/B). He produced the order of enrollment before the police (Exhibit PW3/B) which was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exhibit PW4/C). 10. PW5, ASI Partap Singh stated that in the wake of application form, 13th PAP Battalion (Exhibit PW4/B), he conducted the inquiry that he took into possession certificate of Punjab School Education Board vide recovery memo (Exhibit PW4/A). 11. Likewise, PW6, SI Piara Singh verified the genuineness of the certificate in question from Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, vide application (Exhibit PW6/A). Instead of reproducing the statements of PW5 and PW6 in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that they have testified their investigation and proved the relevant documents. Their evidence was believed by the courts below. 12. Sequelly, the evidence of PW7, Head-Master, Government High Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 5 School, Sangat, is to the effect that in the wake of police request, after verification of record regarding date of birth of Sucha Singh, he made the statement to the police correctly. According to school record, date of birth of petitioner-Sucha Singh was 12.05.1965 (Exhibit PW7/B), when he was admitted in school in 6th class in the year, 1979 vide admission register, copy of relevant page of which is (Exhibit PW7/A). He also maintained that his name was struck off in 7th class for non-payment of school fee. PW8-SI Harjit Singh took into possession the recruitment record and medical certificate of petitioner-Sucha Singh (Exhibit PW3/B) vide recovery memo (Exhibit PW4/C). 13. After the close of the case of the prosecution, the statement of the petitioner was recorded as envisaged under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner categorically admitted that he was recruited as Constable in PAP, Jalandhar on 24.10.1990 vide application form Mark “A” and order (Exhibit PW3/B). However, he has denied the remaining prosecution version and pleaded false implication. The petitioner did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence despite adequate opportunity. 14. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. 15. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 11.01.2002. 16. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments/order and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and have gone through the evidence on record with their valuable help. 18. At the very outset, the main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below fell in grave error in convicting the Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 6 petitioner under Section 468 IPC without any cogent evidence on record in this regard, has considerable force. He has pointed out that the lower Appellate Court has just ignored this aspect of the matter, mainly, on the ground (i) that as the petitioner has used the fabricated matriculation certificate(as genuine) for securing his job, the authorship of the same has to be attributed to him and (ii) there is every reason to say that the fabrication was made by him. The Appellate Court has also observed that even if it be said that the petitioner has not committed the offence under Section 468 IPC but he has definitely committed the offence under Section 471 IPC having used a fabricated document(as genuine) for seeking the employment. Here, to me, the lower Appellate Court fell in grave error in this context. 19. As is evident from the record that the petitioner was firstly charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, which postulates that whoever commits forgery intending that such document shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished under this Section. The forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC to mean that whoever makes any false document or part of the document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 20. Meaning thereby, in order to convict a person under this Section, the prosecution was legally required to prove that in fact the petitioner has actually forged the document(matriculation/educational certificate) in this case. The crux of the evidence of the prosecution as discussed here-in- above is that in the wake of inquiry, the educational/matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment was found to be fake after verification of the relevant record of Punjab School Education Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 7 Board, Mohali. Learned State Counsel did not point out any positive evidence on record even to suggest remotely that it was the petitioner who actually forged the indicated matriculation certificate. Not even a single witness has so stated. No cogent explanation is forthcoming on record or pointed out by the learned State Counsel in this respect. 21. Moreover, from the very beginning, the prosecution evidence proceeded on the premises that matriculation certificate used by the petitioner was subsequently found to be false. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence of forgery and the essential ingredients of Sections 463 and 468 IPC, the petitioner cannot possibly be convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, as has been done by the courts below. Above being the position of law and evidence on record, to my mind, the petitioner deserves the benefit of reasonable doubt. Therefore, having extended the reasonable benefit of doubt in this connection, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 468 IPC. 22. Be that as it may, but as indicated earlier, there is sufficient reliable and trustworthy oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, which established that the petitioner used the fake matriculation certificate of Ashwani Kumar son of Kishori Lal at the time of his recruitment and illegally secured his job as Constable in PAP Jalandhar. Not only that it is clear from the statement of PW7-Head-Master Surinder Kumar that as per school record, date of birth of petitioner-Sucha Singh was 12.05.1965 and he was admitted in the Govt. High School, Sangat, in 6th class in the year 1979, vide relevant entry (Exhibit PW7/A). He also maintained that his name was struck off in 7th class for non-payment of school fee. The bare perusal of the oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed here-in- above, would further go to show that the petitioner used the forged Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 8 matriculation certificate pertaining to Roll No.237915 in which the petitioner was described to have passed the matriculation examination. But, in fact as per report of the Punjab School Education Board (Exhibit PW4/B) and the Gazette proved by PW2 that one Ashwani Kumar son of Kishori Lal (not the petitioner) having the date of birth as 12.01.1969 appeared and passed the matriculation examination against Roll No.237915 under certificate bearing Sr.No.106457 in the month of March, 1985. 23. It is not a matter of dispute that even the petitioner has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he secured the recruitment as a Constable in PAP Jalandhar, on 24.10.1990 vide application form Mark 'A' and vide order(Exhibit PW3/B) on the basis of matriculation certificate. This certificate was subsequently found to be fake and fabricated and in fact it pertained to Roll No.237915 of Ashwani Kumar son of Kishori Lal. 24. Thus, it would be seen that if the entire reliable and trustworthy oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed here-in-above, is put together, then, irresistible and inescapable conclusion is that it stands proved on record that it was the petitioner, who fraudulently and dishonestly used the fabricated matriculation certificate, which he knew to be forged at the time of recruitment and illegally secured the job as a Constable in PAP Jalandhar. Hence, to me, the courts below have rightly convicted him under Section 471 IPC in this connection. 25. Now adverting to the argument of learned counsel that the petitioner is a first offender and is entitled to grant the benefit of probation of Offenders Act, this contention cannot possibly be accepted. Because, again it is not a matter of dispute that the tendency and frequency of using such forged documents in order to secure the jobs illegally or other relatable benefits by the persons, have been tremendously increasing day Crl. Revn. No. 151 of 2002 9 by day in our society, which needs to be curbed by awarding sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, concession of probation cannot be granted to the petitioner under the present set of circumstances. 26. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 27. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 468 IPC is set aside. However, his conviction under Section 471 IPC is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28. As having extended the benefit of reasonable doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under Section 468 IPC and convicted under Section 471 IPC only and as he has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last more than sixteen years and lost his job, so, to me, justice would squarely be met and sub-served if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in this respect. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below is hereby reduced to rigorous imprisonmet for a period of one year. However, the sentence of fine is hereby maintained. Consequently, the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence are modified accordingly. January 22, 2010 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema/reena Judge