KASHIKANT JHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the legality and the validity of the judgment dated 05.02.2015 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2014 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, at Gangtok, East Sikkim, the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is filed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on a complaint made by one Mr. Madhav Sharma S/o of Mrs. Bishnu Maya Sharma, that he had received a forged marks statement, purported to have been issued by the Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE), Delhi from the convict/petitioner, herein, which was surrendered to the Vigilance Police, Gangtok and on the basis of the said complaint a search warrant was issued under the authority of Chief Judicial Magistrate (East & North) at Gangtok, on 19th September, 2001.

(3.) On 20th September, 2001, a search of the convict's/petitioner's residence at Tadong, Gangtok, was conducted, wherefrom, total (61) sixty one documents were seized, most of the said documents were of photocopies of the marks statement, admit cards etc of the various students. One photocopy of the admit card of Madhav Sharma was also obtained. On the same day, shop-cum-business premise owned by Mrs. Meena Jha, wife of the convict/petitioner was also raided, wherefrom, in total (60) sixty documents were recovered and seized, all containing admit cards, statement of marks of various persons. One admit card no.284 issued by the North Bengal University, in favour of the convict/petitioner for B.Ed Examination 1993 and also marks statement of the B.Ed Examination 1993 indicating him as passed and one more statement of marks of B.Ed 1995 from the same University wherein he was found failed, were also seized and recovered. Consequent thereupon, a Vigilance P.S. case No.RC-19/2001 dated 22.09.2001 under Section 468/120 B, of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") was registered. On completion of the investigation, it transpired that the convict/petitioner had forged marks statement of Madhav Sharma which was marked as (Exhibit P-16).