CR.A/315/2002 of STATE Vs KHEM RAJ on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Cr.A.No.315 of 2002

31.12.2008

Date of decision

State of H.P.

Appellant

Versus

Khem Raj

Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1]

For the appellant :

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. AG

For the respondent: Ms. Nidhi Chawla, learned Advocate.

Per R.B. Misra J (Oral )

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the State of HImachal Pradesh, Under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 31.1.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. whereby after adjudicating the Criminal Appeal No.15-N/10 of 2001/2000, learned Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the judgment dated 17.6.2000 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh Camp at Sarahan, District Sirmaur, HP in Criminal Case No. 41/2 of 1998.

The prosecution case is that the alleged accused was a student of 10[th] Class of Government Senior Secondary School, Majra in District Sirmaur, in the year 1991, who left the school on 30[th]

1Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ?

September, 1991 and obtained School Leaving Certificate ( in short ‘SLC’). It appears, respondent-accused filed an application on 14[th]October, 1991 for issuance of another School Leave Certificate (SLC), on the ground that the earlier School Leave Certificate issued from the school was lost. On the request of the opposite party-accused, another School Leaving Certificate was issued in the name of accused and such certificate was issued by PW-1, Sh. M.L. Gupta, According to him, the name of opposite party was recorded as Khem Raj, his father’s name as Amar Singh and his date of birth as 2.1.1975. It appears that the opposite party was able to get an admission in Govt. High School, Galanaghat ( in short ‘GHS, Galanaghat’). For that purpose, opposite party had submitted an application to the Headmaster of GHS, Galanaghat. In reference to some complaint, it was noticed that there was cutting in the School Leaving Certificate, pertaining to the opposite party and on suspicion, a case was registered in Police Station, Pachhad and on investigation, a charge sheet against the opposite party was submitted for his alleged involvement under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and the case was put to trial. The trial court has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses on the basis of the prosecution evidences and materials on record and the offence under sections 468, 465 and 420 IPC was not proved against the opposite party However, the opposite party was held guilty for the offence under section 471 IPC. Accordingly, the opposite party was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 471 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to go simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Being aggrieved, the opposite party preferred criminal appeal No. 15-N/10 of 2001/2000 before learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, which was adjudicated in reference to the materials on record and prosecution witnesses.

From the testimony of PW-1, it was revealed that the opposite party has produced the correct certificate before the Principal/Authority of Govt. High School, Galanaghat. On production of correct certificate, he had secured admission. At subsequent stage, some interpolation/manipulation or some forgery has taken place which, however was not at the instance of opposite party. As per the analysis made by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it appears that at the instance of somebody else, forgery was made in the certificate initially produced by the opposite party and that too after securing admission by the opposite party. In the circumstances, the opposite party cannot be said to have committed forgery in the original correct certificate after it use or after production of the same before the Principal/concerned official. No criminal liability can be fastened on the accused/opposite party under section 471 IPC. On the analysis of the material on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has correctly arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, more so regarding the time and the person at whose instance the said forgery was made, whereby the opposite party could have said to have been benefited.

I have heard learned counsel for the State as well as Ms. Nidhi Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the documents and on analysis of the materials on record and prosecution witnesses, I find that some interpolation had been made in the certificate produced by the opposite party. However, nothing could be revealed that the opposite party was involved in such forgery or interpolation and at his instance such forgery was made, whereas in all probability, the opposite party could be said to have secured his admission on the basis of true certificate and if any forgery or interpolation/ manipulation has been made by the unspecified person or party, for that act or misdeed, the opposite party cannot be held guilty. The prosecution in that respect in my respectful consideration, has successfully not been able to prove that the said forgery was the outcome of the misdeed of opposite party. I find no illegality and impropriety in the judgment/order dated 31.1.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, , Sirmaur at Nahan, which has been arrived at the correct analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record and the opposite party cannot be held guilty of an offence said to have been committee under section 471 IPC.

Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal, hence the same is dismissed.

31[st] December, 2008 (sl)

( R.B. Misra ), J.