NANDAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Court), Ernakulam, convicted the revision petitioner in C. C. 6 of 1983 for offences punishable under S.468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced under each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were allowed to be undergone concurrently. In Crl. A. No. 110 of 1983, the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge (CBI/SPE), Ernakulam, confirmed the convictions, but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. Crl. R. P. 521 of 1983 was filed by the accused. Crl. R. C. 3 of 1984 is a suo motu revision, against the reduction of sentence.

(2.) During 1978-'80, the revision petitioner was a Pre degree student. He wrote for the examination in 1980 and passed in all subjects, except English. His second attempt; for English also failed. Therefore he borrowed the Pre degree certificate of pw. 24, another student, who is his own friend. pw. 24 did not pursue his studies. Revision petitioner made alterations in the certificate of pw. 24 so as to make it appear that it was his own certificate. Other necessary corrections in the marks were also made. He used the certificate for getting admission in a parallel college For that purpose he produced it before pw. 25. the Principal, on 19-9-1981 and got admission. Charge under S.468 of the Indian Penal Code is on the allegation that he made alterations in the Pre degree certificate and thereby committed the offence of forgery. He produced the certificate before pw. 25 and used it as genuine. Thereby he committed an offence punishable under S.471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the same act he committed the offence punishable under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code by making false representations to pw. 25 through the forged documents that he passed the Pre degree examination and thereby obtained admission to B. Com Degree Course by practising deception on pw. 25. The first charge is independent and second and 3rd charges go together.

(3.) Correctness of the conviction's were not canvassed before me. The only argument was on the question of sentence. Counsel for the revision petitioner wanted provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to be applied. Public Prosecutor representing the State wanted the reduction of sentence to be set aside as improper. Therefore I am considering the criminal revision petition as well as the criminal revision case together in this order.