THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1277 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused challenging judgment dated 16.07.2004 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2001, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.103 of 2000 dated 16.03.2001 by the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, was confirmed. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner- accused, who is a resident of Macherla, applied for the post of driver in APSRTC, Guntur, and produced his driving licence purported to have been issued by the Road Transport Authority of Thana, Maharastra. However, on verification of the said driving licence, the same was found to be a forged document, and thereupon, a report was lodged by the Personnel Officer of APSRTC, Guntur, before the concerned police on 31.12.1998 and the same was registered as Crime No.335 of 1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned took up the investigation of the case. Further, after the completion of the investigation of the case, the corresponding charge sheet was filed. The petitioner-accused was tried for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 417 IPC and was found guilty of committing the offence under Section 471 IPC only and was accordingly convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, whereas aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2001, whereby the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur, on consideration of the material available on record, by his judgment dated 16.07.2004 confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that though the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is not trustworthy, the Courts below erroneously accepted their evidence. Further, the relevant record was not produced by the petitioner/accused and as such the ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not established and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are not sustainable. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments of the Courts below. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below?” POINT:- According to the prosecution version, the report of the concerned Expert marked as Ex.P7 is very important. A perusal of the said report clearly shows that Ex.P1 is a fabricated document. Further, under Section 293 Cr.P.C., without examining the Expert who issued Ex.P7, the same document can be accepted to be true and correct. Further, there is ample evidence to the effect that the accused himself produced Ex.P1-driving licence, which happened to be a fabricated document, for the purpose of securing job as Driver in APSRTC. Under these circumstances and considering the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have examined the matter in proper perspective and I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 15th July, 2011 v v