CHINTAMANI DWIVEDI Vs. THE STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 7.4.1983 passed by Sri N.S. Shamshery the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal appeal No. 302 of 1982 confirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 420/465/471 Indian Penal Code and sentencing the applicant undergo 6 months R.I. The prosecution claimed that the accused revisionist had applied for admission to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police Cadets) in 1975 Session of the Police Training College, Moradabad. In his application form, the accused revisionist mentioned his date of birth as 8th July, 1954. He had annexed an attested copy of the High School certificate with his application. On the basis of his application the applicant was called for written test on 13.4.75 and for physical test on 14.4.75. He was then called for personal interview on 19.10.75. When the applicant produced his original High School Certificate before Sri Guru Bux Lal Kapoor D.I. (M) U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad it was found that an interpolation had made in the said certificate in the year of birth of the applicant. It was changed from 1952 to 1954. After needful investigation into the matter the accused revisionist was prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid. Hence the revision. I have heard Sri S.K. Verma learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri S.K.S. Yadav, Additional Government Advocate for the State; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused revisionist before me that there was no evidence on record to prove that the interpolation in the High School Certificate of the applicant was made by the applicant himself. It was further argued that even if the year of birth of the applicant was recorded as 1952 the applicant was not over aged and was entitled to the job applied for. It was further argued that no offence under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code was made out as the applicant had not induced any person dishonestly for delivering the admit card which could have been issued to him, even though he was held to have been born in the year 1952. The conviction of the accused-revisionist was therefore, bad in law. The learned counsel for the accused revisionist further argued that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not giving the benefit of the provisions of U.P. First Offenders Act to the applicant. I am unable to agree with the contention of the accused revisionist for the reason that a perusal of the original High School Certificate Ex. I filed by the prosecution fully go to show from naked eyes that the year of birth in the said certificate has been grossly and materingly altered. It is obviously in different handwriting and ink. This High School certificate related to the accused revisionist and was in possession of the applicant. But for his knowledge, there could have been no interpolation in the year of birth of the applicant in the said certificate. The circumstances that in his application form the applicant mentioned the year of his birth as 1954 and the circumstances that in his enrolment application which was submitted on the N.C.C. his date of birth was mentioned 8th July,1952, and further that in the Counter-foil of his High School Certificate which was kept in the office of U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, the year of birth of the applicant was mentioned as 1952 and further that the same was mentioned in the scholar register fully go to prove that the applicant was responsible for making interpolation in his High School certificate in the year of birth, either himself of through somebody and the fact that there was mentioned in the said certificate was very much within the knowledge of the applicant. The High School certificate which shows the date of birth of the candidate is a very valuable security for the reason that the eligibility of a candidate regarding his age for a particular service is determined with reference to that certificate. Since this certificate was used by the applicant for seeking admission to the course of Sub Inspector of Police training, I am of the opinion that the applicant was rightly held by the court below to have committed offences punishable under Sec. 420/465/471 Indian Penal Code. The finding of fact recorded the trial court and affirmed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge appears to be quite correct and warrants no interference by this court. Coming to the point of sentence. I find that a period of 20 years has since elapsed. The applicant has suffered a lot of mental agony since after the conviction was sustained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it will meet the ends of justice if instead of further sending the applicant to Jail, the period of sentence already undergone by him plus sentence of a fine of Rs.5000.00 is inflicted upon the applicant. I accordingly direct that instead of sentence of a 6 months R.I. the applicant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for the period he has undergone during and after trial by the trial court plus a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of the payment of the same to undergo R.I. for three months. The revisionist is granted two months time to deposit the amount of fine failing which the court below shall proceed to recover the same according to law. With these observations the revision is dismissed. Revision Dismissed.