SELVAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Crl.R.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 9.1.2007 in Crl.A.No.267 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.4, Bhavani, Erode District, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.318 of 2001, dated 7.8.2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Bhavani, whereby the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment each.

(2.) THE skeleton of the prosecution case is as follows: THE Chief Educational Officer P.W.8 received 442 candidates from the Employment Exchange and scrutinised the papers and issued the post of Teacher to 256 candidates. THE revision petitioner/accused received the appointment order ExP-1 on 27.1.1999 and she reported for duty on 27.1.1999 before the Headmistress-in-charge of the School, namely P.W.2 and produced her documents Exs.P-2 to P-5. THE documents were sent for verification and on verification, it was found that except SSLC mark sheet, the other documents were fabricated and Ex.P-7 termination order was issued on 26.2.1999 and P.W.1 has given complaint Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-13 is the FIR and the case has been registered against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC. P.W.10 investigating officer took the case on file and investigated the case and he examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused.

(3.) REFUTING the said contentions, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that after appointment of the person to a post, the usual practice is that the documents produced by the incumbent will be forwarded to the Director of School Education for verification and on verification, it was found that except the SSLC mark sheet, the other documents were fabricated and so, the Chief Educational Officer, Erode, i.e. P.W.8, has given a complaint and P.Ws.9 and 10 investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused and both the Courts below have considered the evidence of witnesses and came to the correct conclusion and prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C.