SRINIVAS RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 66 of 1994 as confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1996 for the alleged offence punishable under S. 468 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the petitioner-appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to the charge-sheet filed is that the petitioner herein offered surety in favour of the accused in Cr. No. 152 of 1992, registered under Ss. 3 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate and in that context he produced his salary certificates. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on suspicion about the genuineness of the salary certificates produced by the petitioner herein referred the same and reported the matter to the Inspector of Police. Pursuant to that, a case in Cr. No. 6 of 1993 was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 463, 468 and 471, IPC. Subsequently the matter was transferred to Mir Chowk Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and after investigation and enquiry a charge-sheet was filed by the concerned police against the petitioner herein that while working as a Mechanical Cleaner in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the petitioner prepared forged salary certificate by showing himself as the Record Assistant and produced the same before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(3.) The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 on its behalf. Basing on the oral and the documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 468 and 471, IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, on each count. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the petitioner for the offence punishable under S. 471, IPC, however, held that he is guilty of the offence punishable under S. 468, IPC and accordingly sentenced him, reducing the period of one year to that of six months.