ROMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded by learned Ist -Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby accused Romesh Chander was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of like nature for a period of 2 months in proof of offence under Sec. 471 R.P.C.

(2.) THE facts that culminating in the prosecution of the accused Romesh Chander stemming out of the record depicted in narration are that J&K Public Service Commission (in short PSC) invited applications from the eligible candidates for appearing in the Sub -Inspector, Excise and Taxation Departmental examination vide Notification No.PSC Ex -82/92 dated 20.10.1982.Accused Romesh Chander working as excise guard in the Excise and Taxation department also applied to the commission for appearing in the Sub -Inspector Examination after securing eligibility certificate from the Deputy Commissioner Excise Jammu. The accused was allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination and permission was provisonal subject to production of original Matriculation Certificate. The result of the accused was however with -held by Public Service Commission on account of non -production of the Original Matriculation Certificate. However, the accused was asked to produce the certificate so that his result could be declared by the PSC. An application was however submitted by the accused to Secretary PSC averring therein that he could produce a matriculation certificate and thereupon produced the matriculation certificate in original to the PSC. On taking the original matriculation certificate Secretary Public Service Commission became suspicious about its genuineness and consequently issued a direction that the certificate produced by the petitioner be forwarded to the J&K Board of School Education to verify its genuineness. On verification by the J&K State Board of School Education Jammu (hereinafter referred as J&K Board), found the matriculation certificate produced by the accused to be fake and the Roll No. 16085 year 1979 Annual (June) Session reflected to be the Roll No. of the accused Romesh Chander in the Certificate produced by him in fact did not belong to the accused but it pertained to one Parshotam Kumar S/o Sain having passed the examination under the said Roll number.The matter was reported by Shri S.A.Jalali, Deputy Secretary, Administration, of the Board to Vigilance Commissioner about the fake matriculation certificate produced by the accused for investigation. The Commissioner however referred the matter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Range, Jammu for further necessary action as the offence, according to him, did not fall within the ambit of prevention of Corruption Act.A case under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC stood registered with the police concerned and investigation ensued.On the conclusion of investigation the accused was finally sent up to stand his trial for the alleged offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and the learned Trial court found him guilty under Sec. 471 RPC and he was sentenced accordingly.

(3.) MR . Harbans Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there being no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court does not warrant the conviction of the accused. His further submission is that prosecution has failed to prove that the fake document has been prepared by the accused and that the said document (matriculation certificate) was a forged document and the accused dishonestly or fraudulently used the forged matriculation certificate as genuine knowing the said document to be forged one. According to appellants counsel, the trial court convicted the accused on a parverse view of the evidence.MRs. Shaishta Hakim, learned Government Advocate, argued that circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused to have used the matriculation certificate as genuine which he knew or has reason to believe to be a forged one.