MADAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, one by appellant Madan Gopal and the other by appellant Surinder Mohan Katwal, are directed against the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 28th August, 2006, of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the appellants, in both the appeals, have been convicted and sentenced of offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery and criminal misconduct, has been assailed. So, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) APPELLANT Surinder Mohan Katwal has been convicted of offences, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, while appellant Madan Gopal has been convicted of offences, under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced as follows:

(3.) LIST, indicating the score in the written test as also the interview and the total marks, was prepared. That list is Ex. PW-2/C-14. In this list, score in viva-voce, in respect of appellant Madan Gopal, was written as "12" and his rating was written as "average", under the Remarks column. With score as "12", in the interview or viva-voce test, appellant Madan Gopal was not going to be included in the Select LIST. Therefore, his score was raised to "18" and word "above" had been added by pre- fixation to word "average" already written in the column pertaining to Remarks. Because of these interpolations, regarding increase in the marks scored in interview and the addition of word "above" before the word "average", appellant Madan Gopal got included in the list of selected candidates.