STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal to impugn the order of acquittal of respondents-Balwinder Singh, Raj Masih and Malkiat Ram. The respondents were prosecuted for offence under Sections 417, 466, 468 and 471 IPC. The case against the respondents was initiated on the basis of letter received from Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali pointing that the investigation of matriculation certificate sent by SSP, Jalandhar on 27.08.1992 revealed that the details of the result shown in the certificate did not match with the record of the Board. The investigation report, accordingly, was sent with the direction that the suitable action be taken against the respondents-candidates. The candidates against whom the action was recommended are Malkiat Ram, Balwinder Singh and Raj Masih. It was reported that roll number of Malkiat Ram son of Nasib Chand was 673814 and serial number of certificate card is 192584. This roll number was issued to Gurdip Singh of A.S.C. School, Khanna. On receipt of this letter from the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, it was found that the certificate produced by Constable-Malkiat Ram was bogus. In the case of Balwinder Singh-respondent, his date of birth, according to the record was 28.04.1965 as it was found to have been changed to 28.04.1968. The certificate, accordingly, has been found tampered with in this manner. The prosecution was, accordingly, lodged against the respondents for the offences as already noticed.

(2.) The prosecution examined Darbara Singh, Superintendent Certificate Section, PSEB, Mohali. He had also brought the original record. He gave his evidence about the scrutiny of the certificate submitted by respondents-Balwinder Singh, Raj Masih and Malkiat Ram. He had, thus, supported to the prosecution's case.

(3.) The trial Court after appreciating the evidence has acquitted the respondents. It is found by the trial Court that except for the evidence given in regard to the verification of the certificates done by the Secretary of the Board, there was no incriminating evidence available on the file against the accused persons. Even the original certificates of any of the accused persons had not been produced. The evidence that these certificates were forged by the respondents-accused persons was also not given before the Court.