MAHADEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision petition under section 397 CrPC, 1973 has been filed against order dated 19.02.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Cr. Appeal No.06/1998 whereby he has upheld the conviction of petitioner for offence under section 467 IPC, recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Original Case No.549/1992 and modified the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 06 months and maintained fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Briefly stated, on 11.10.1992 certain papers were received to Police Station, Kotwali, Barmer from office of the S.P., Barmer, inter alia, alleging that MPW Mahadeo had obtained appointment in Malaria Department by obtaining a false Transfer Certificate of 8th Standard from Government Upper Primary School No.3, Barmer. On these allegations, a case under sections 467 and 471 IPC was registered and after investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner for offence under sections 467, 471 IPC.

(3.) It is contended that the prosecution did not examine the person whose signature alleged to be appended on so-called forged Transfer Certificate. Be that as it may, after the trial, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under section 471 IPC. It is contended that the learned trial judge did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 360 CrPC, 1973 while considering the question of sentence. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, in which the appellate court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision petition. It is contended that the learned trial judge as well as learned appellate judge have erred in law in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The most outstanding feature of the case is that the prosecution did not care to examine the person whose signature were allegedly forged on the Transfer Certificate and in such circumstances, it can not be proved that the petitioner had either forged or used said forged document intentionally. The learned trial judge has himself come to a finding that the petitioner was not responsible for forging of the Certificate. None of the witnesses concerned with issuance of the Transfer Certificate were examined so as to prove that said document was forged by the petitioner. That apart, it has not been proved by any of the witnesses that the petitioner had submitted the Certificate, which was allegedly forged.