SIRAJUDHEEN KUDATTU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the accused in CC No. 1 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Androth and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Session, Lakshadweep. By the judgment dated 29.03.2005, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Lakshadweep. By its judgment dated 04.11.2006, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused is before this Court.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is an bereinbelow:- The accused was a student of the Pusa Polytechnic at New Delhi for Mechanical Engineering Diploma course. The accused entered Government service as ITI Instructor on 18.3.1996 in Kalpeni Government ITI and continued in the said post till 19.9.1996. PW1, the then Vigilance Officer of Lakshadweep received reliable information that the certificate produced by the accused before the authority was forged. Accordingly, he made necessary enquiry with the principle of Pusa Polytechnic and it was reported from the said institution that the accused had not even passed the said course and the certificate produced by him before the competent authority was forged. Hence the allegation is that without having passed the Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering, the accused used as genuine the forged provisional Diploma certificate purported to be in his favour and fraudulently obtained employment as Instructor in the Kalpeni Government ITI in the post of Instructor Workshop Calculation and Science and Engineering Drawing. Thereafter, the crime was registered, for the offences punishable under Section 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police filed final report for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) On the appearance of the accused, after having heard both sides, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused under Section 466 and 471 of the IPC. The charge was read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.