PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HYDERABAD Vs. P VIGNESHWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor against the Judgment dated 24th July, 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Spl. Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar, in C.C.No. 256 /1994.

(2.) The accused-respondent was charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420, IPC on the allegation that he forged the S.S.C. Certificate for the purpose of seeking appointment in APSRTC (for brevity "the Corporation') as Conductor and used the forged document as genuine certificate with dishonest intention and induced the department by delivering the certificate and therefore liable for punishment for the said offences. He pleaded not guilty of the charges when the charges were read over and explained to him. During the course of the trial, three witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of prosecution and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked.

(3.) The case of the prosecution as seen from the testimony of the witnesses, in brief, is that pursuant to the notification issued by the Divisional Manager, Mahabubnagar Division of the Corporation, the accused, and several others applied for the posts of Conductors. The accused applied for the said post enclosing his original S.S.C. Certificate Ex.P-2 along with the application Ex.P-1. During the course of interview, basing on the percentage of marks obtained by him, as can be seen from Ex.P-2, he was selected for the post of Conductor. In usual course Ex.P-2 was sent for verification to the Board of Secondary Education (for brevity 'the Board'). In the meanwhile, the accused was given posting order and in pursuance thereof, he joined duty as Conductor in the Corporation. The Addl. Joint Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examinations who was examined as P.W.2 deposed that pursuant to the letter addressed by Divisional Manager, Mahabubnagar Division of the Corporation - P.W.1, the Officer of the Board got the certificates verified along with the certificates of several other candidates in similar cases. On such verification with the office records of the Board, it was found that some of the certificates were not issued by the Office and some certificates were issued by the Office but the marks therein were tampered. As regards the accused, Ex.P-2 S.S.C. Certificate was not issued by the office and the marks mentioned therein were also not correct as per the office records. The abstract containing the marks secured by the accused was also sent by the witness (P.W.2) to the Corporation in Ex.P-5. Thereupon on a complaint lodged by the authorities of the Corporation, a case was registered against the accused-respondent, investigated into and charge-sheet was ultimately filed. After perusing the evidence on record, after examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence made available, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of forgery beyond all reasonable doubt. Having been aggrieved by the said finding of the trial Court, the State has preferred this present appeal.