STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOTIBHAI JETHABHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-10-1982 passed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C., Bajana in Criminal Case No. 610 of 1981, the State has approached this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1983 for enhancement of sentence under Sec. 377 Cri. Pro. Code. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1983 from the order of acquittal passed for the offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 468 I. P. C. The original complainant has also filed Criminal Revision Application No. 42 of 1983 against the order of acquittal passed for the aforesaid offences and also against the order of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the accused Motibhai Jethabhai Makwana was working as a Teacher in a High School run in the name of Patwari Maniben Balubhai Vidyavihar at Bajana. According to the prosecution, the accused submitted a bill for a sum of Rs. 2,579.00 before the school authorities for Leave Travel Benefit on the ground that the accused with his family travelled on 6-5-1981 from Bajana to Varanasi and on 17- 5-1981 from Varanasi to Bajana by railway and travelled in First Class. According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate F. C., Bajana for offences under Sees. 420, 468, 465 and 511 I. P. C. The said complaint was filed on 16-10-1981. The Court passed an order under Sec. 156(3) Gri. Pro. Code for making an inquiry by the Police. The P. S. I., Bajana submitted the charge-sheet against the present accused and on submission of the said charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance and tried the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sees, 420, 468, 465 read with Sec. 511 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(3.) Mr. K. M. Mehta, learned Addl. P. P. for the State submitted at the outset that the appeal of the State filed under Sec. 377 Cri. Pro. Code may be treated as an appeal under Sec. 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. Amit Shah has also fairly stated that he has no objection if the appeal filed by the State under Sec. 377 Cri. Pro. Code is treated as an appeal under Sec. 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, Cri. Appeal No. 84 of 1983 filed by the State is ordered to be treated as an appeal under Sec. 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. Therefore, now we have to look as to what offence is committed by the accused. Before coming to the conclusion whether the trial Court committed an error in giving benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, it will have to be seen whether the conviction order passed by the trial Court was tenable on the facts found by the trial Court, as envisaged by Sec. 465 I. P. C. Section 465 I. P. C. is a punishing section for the offence of forgery. Therefore, we will have to turn to the definition of 'forgery' given in Sec. 463 I. P. C. Section 463 I. P. C. reads as under :