G MOUNICA Vs. K SUDARSANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defacto-complainant against the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari. The present appellant Smt. Geddam Mounica filed a private complaint against the respondent K. Sudarsana Rao for the offences under Sections 197, 418, 427 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, After following the procedure prescribed by law and after recording the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2, the court framed charges under Sections 167 and 427 I.P.C. against the accused. The main allegation against the accused is that the accused altered the date of appointment in the service register of the complainant from 6-9-1976 to 1-7-1977 and he did this taking advantage of the fact that Government issued G.O. 411 dated 23-4-1982 as per which untrained and unqualified teachers appointed on or afier 23-4-1977 shall not be continued and they can be ousted. In view of this G.O., the accused resorted to this mischief of altering the date of appointment from 6-9-1976 to 1-7-1977 and as a result of this, he issued orders terminating her appointment and thereby caused mischief and loss. He resorted to forgery overlooking several other official documents which clearly indicate that the complainant was appointed on 6-9-1976.

(2.) After a very elaborate trial, the Magistrate found that the ingredients of an offence under Section 167 I.P.C. age not established because the accused is not deemed to be a public servant but, at any rate, an offence under Section 463 I.P.C., is established and so the accused is liable for punishment under Section 465 I P.C. The court accordingly found the accused guilty for an offence under Section 465 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs, 4,000/- in case of default of payment to fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, if paid, Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation.

(3.) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appealed. Appeal No 100 of 1987 and the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari by judgment dated 31st November, 1988, acquitted the accused. The main reason for the court acquitting the accused is that without a specific charge being framed for an offence under Section 463 I.P.C. punishable under Section 465 I.P.C., the court is not entitled to convict the accused for an offence under Section 465 I.P.C. Having acquitted the accused for an offence under Section 167 I.P.C., it is not open to the court to convict the accused for an offence under Section 465 I.P.C. The conviction, in the absence of a distinct and specific charge, is unsustainable. The court pointed out that the reasoning of the trial court invoking the aid of Section 221 Cr. P.C, is not correct. He pointed that the ingredients of an offence under Section 167 I.P.C. and the ingredients of an offence under Section 465 I.P.C. are not common. While 167 I.P.C. refers to an initial making of an incorrect record, Section 465 I.P.C. deals with subsequent alteration of a document which is already made. The court also pointed out that as the main allegation is that forgery is committed by making alterations in the service register and as the service register was not produced before the court, no finding can be recorded to the eff'eet that the accused committed the offence of forgery as contemplated under Section 463 I.P.C. It is also observed by the learned sessions judge that by virtue of the alleged alteration in the service register, no injury or damage is caused to the complainant. As she continued in service in pursuance of the stay orders granted by the D.E.O., no damage is caused to her. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused.