KU VAISHALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision application impugns the order passed by learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Appeal No. 16 of 2004. The appellant was originally convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Her conviction was maintained in appeal by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, however, sentence was reduced from six months to three months. The substantive sentences imposed on the applicant under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code were directed to run concurrently. As such, the applicant was supposed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the each offence. The allegations against the applicant in brief are that She has produced a forged mark list in respect of her 12th Standard Examination before the authorities at Karmaveer Mahavidyalaya, to seek admission in first year of Bachelor of Arts Degree. There were three other accused, who allegedly prepared a mark list in furtherance of common intention of the said three accused, and the applicant. Amongst the said three accused, accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, accused No. 2 was found guilty and the sentence similar to the sentence imposed on accused No. 1 (applicant) was imposed on the accused No. 2 also.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Daga appears on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Daga that the applicant is from poor strata of the society and she was hardly 24 years old at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted by Mr. Daga that the applicant belongs to an ordinary lower middle class family and keeping her in the prison will not serve the purpose of justice. It is contended that the applicant cannot be slapped with deterrent punishment in such a case and that the Court should have adopted a reformative theory of punishment.

(3.) I have gone through the record and proceedings and T have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Daga. Considering the section of society to which the applicant belongs and her social and economical status and also considering her age at the time of commission of the alleged offence, I am in agreement with learned counsel Mr. Daga that the reformative punishment was the best option before the learned trial Court. The deterrent punishment was not the option in the present case. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the order of the learned appellate Court, as under-