Kirpal Singh v. State of Panjab

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Panjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Kirpal Singh accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') could not clear the B.Sc. Part III examination in Chemistry subject, yet, while forging the certificate of B.Sc. he took admission in B.Ed. in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and thereafter while placing reliance on the B.Sc. Part-III examination he obtained the government job. Later on, on the complaint filed by Lakhbir Singh Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khandhala Jattan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, a case was registered against the accused and was investigated. On completion of the investigation challan against him was presented. He was charged under Section 420/468/471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Lakhbir Singh (PW1), C. Jarnail Singh (PW2), Joginder Singh Clerk, D.E.O (S) Office, Hoshiarpur (PW3), Nirmala Devi Clerk, Government College of Education Jalandhar (PW4), DSP Harvinder Singh (PW5), Gulzar Singh Sr. Assistant (PW7), Sansar Singh Assistant Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (PW8) and Inspector Ram Asra (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false in the case. Vide judgment dated 27.3.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, he was convicted under Section 420/468/471 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2005 -2- *** fine of Rs.2000/- each under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. His appeal was dismissed on 18.7.2005. During appeal, he had also applied for leading additional evidence for proving that on re-valuation of his marks, he was declared passed in B.Sc. Examination. The prime argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the document which was alleged to have been forged has not been produced on the record and it is not proved beyond doubt as who had forged the document. In the absence of the original document, the petitioner could not be convicted. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, I do not find any merit in the same. Since the original B.Sc. Part-III examination certificate was supposed to be in possession of the petitioner, therefore, the prosecution neither could compel the petitioner to produce the said certificate nor it having no control of the same could produce the same. However, in order to prove the fact that the accused had not cleared the B.Sc. Part-III examination in April, 1991, the prosecution has examined Nirmla Devi (PW4) to prove on record the document Ex.PW4/G an official letter written by the Controller of the Examination, Panjab University, Chandigarh to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Panjab, Hoshiarpur indicating that the petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. Part-III examination in April, 1991 as student of D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur vide roll No.50929 allotted by the Panjab University, Chandigarh and he could not clear the examination, rather he got a compartment in the Chemistry. This evidence by way of an authentic letter issued by the university could not be challenged in cross-examination of Nirmala Devi (PW4). Since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the son of Jagat Singh, therefore, it cannot be said that the letter did not relate to the petitioner. Further more, the registration number of the petitioner is 74-PU-351 and similar registration number is mentioned in the document which was sought to be produced by the accused at the time of leading evidence. Further Ex.PW5/J, which is the Gazette of Panjab University, pertaining to B.Sc. Part-III examination of April, 1991 which indicates that the accused got re-appear in the subject of Chemistry. Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2005 -3- *** Though as per letter Ex.PW5/D, a candidate even if placed in compartment could seek migration and get provisional admission in the next higher class but that does not exclude the criminal liability of the accused when he after forging the document got himself admitted in the B.Ed. class. He not only passed the B.Ed. examination but on the basis of the said certificate of B.Sc. Part-III examination as well as the degree obtained by him in B.Ed. examination he obtained the government service thereby cheating the Government of Panjab. The service book of the petitioner Ex.PE placed on the file indicates that the accused got undue benefit of the forgery committed by him while making an entry into service book. Consequently, it would be observed that while getting undue benefit of the forgery, the accused cheated the Panjab Government. Thus, an offence under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC is clearly made out against the accused. In order to prove the offence under Section 471 IPC, the evidence led by the prosecution on the record transpires that the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently mis-represented the Educational Authorities while seeking admission in the B.Ed. examination by concealing the fact that he has not so far passed the B.A. Part-III examination. He cleared the B.Ed. examination and then on the basis of these two certificates he made entry into government service. Thus, he has certainly committed an offence under Section 471 IPC also. As regards the argument with regard to non production of the original certificate, ample evidence has been led on the record to prove that the petitioner had forged the certificate in which he had shown himself to have passed B.Sc. from Panjab University, Chandigarh. He had submitted the said certificate to the Government College of Education, Jalandhar, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and then to the Department of Education, Government of Panjab. The original certificates being in possession of the accused could be produced by him in order to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. Had he actually passed the B.Sc. Part-III examination, then he would have produced the said certificates without any delay. Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2005 -4- *** Having perused the judgment passed by both the courts blow, it transpires that the courts after taking stock of the entire evidence into consideration had indicted him for the offences under Sections 420/471 IPC. No scope has been left by the First Appellate Court while sifting the chaff from the grain. The highhandedness of the petitioner does not incite this court to take any lenient view in the matter. If such forgers or manipulators are extended leniency, then it is likely to send wrong signals to the society and encourage the forgery, mis-representation and the cheating. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. December 06, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge