JUDGMENT Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - Balbir Singh applicant was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Meerut, under Section 419 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months R.I. and under Section 468, Indian Panel Code. sentenced to two years' R. I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/-. He was further convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. On appeal, the conviction and sentences passed against the applicant were maintained. The present revision has been filed against the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The prosecution case in brief, is that the applicant pretending to be a qualified Engineer, holding the degree in Engineering of the Banaras Hindu University applied to the General Manager, Daurala Sugar Works, for the post of an Assistant Engineer. He sent an application (Ex. P2) and alleged therein that he was a B. Sc. (Engineering) of Banaras Hindu University. The papers (Exs. P 4 to P 10) were filed along with the application. He was called for interview on 14th April 1949 and on the basis of the certificates produced by him claimed to be B. Sc. (Engineering) of the Banaras University. By their letter Ex. P 12, the Daurala Sugar Works asked the applicant to send his original University certificate and Ex. P 3 was sent by him. The General Manager of the Daurala Sugar Works got however, suspicious and he wrote to the Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, a letter of which Ex. P 13 is a copy enquiring from him if the applicant had passed the B. Sc. Examination from the University and the certificates submitted by him were issued by the University. The Registrar replied to the General Manager by a letter (Ex. P 14) in which it was stated that no student of the name of Mr. Balbir Singh was awarded the B. Sc. (Engineering) degree in the convocation of 1938 and on the 17th of December 1938 when the convocation was held Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya was the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Further enquiries were made by the University authorities and the papers were sent to the C. I. D. for necessary investigation. On these facts the applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 468, 419 and 471, Indian Panel Code. 3. Further enquiries were made by the University authorities and the papers were sent to the C. I. D. for necessary investigation. On these facts the applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 468, 419 and 471, Indian Panel Code. 3. The facts alleged by the prosecution were admitted by the applicant. He also made a confession (Ex. P 57). It was admitted by him in his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code that he had made the confession. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that on the facts established no offence under Section 419, Indian Panel Code. is made out. Section 419 is as follows- "Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment oil either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both." Cheating by personation is defined in Section 416, Indian Panel Code.- "A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is." 4. The applicant never pretended to be other than Balbir Singh. What he did was that he falsely represented that he possessed B. Sc. (Engineering) Degree of Benaras University. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was any other student of the name of Balbir Singh who had actually obtained the B.Sc. (Engineering) Degree in the year 1938 from the Benares University and the applicant falsely stated that he was that Balbir Singh. The contention of the applicant's counsel therefore, has considerable force and, in my judgment, no case under Section 419, Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. 5. The next argument is that there is no evidence to prove that the original certificate was forged by the applicant. Section 468, Indian Panel Code. punishes a person who actually commits forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Before an offence under Section 468 is made out against the applicant it must be established that he actually committed forgery. Section 468, Indian Panel Code. punishes a person who actually commits forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Before an offence under Section 468 is made out against the applicant it must be established that he actually committed forgery. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that- "Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document." 6. Even if it be held that there is no direct evidence to prove that the applicant actually forged the original certificate he can be held liable under Section 471 as he fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the certificate which he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged certificate. The contention of the applicant was that if the original document was forged that copy obtained by the applicant, which was genuine copy of the forged document, is used by him, no offence is committed under Section 471 Indian Panel Code. The argument of the applicant, in short, is that if a genuine copy of a forged document is sent by the applicant, it cannot be said that he used a forged document knowing it or having reason to believe it to be a forged document. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant for this proposition upon In re Gopalakrishna Heggade, 20 M.L.J. 534,. A contrary view was taken in a case reported in In re Rathinam Pillai, 33 Crl. L.J. 452,. A learned Single Judge of this Court held in Emperor v. Mulai Singh, I.L.R. 28 Alld. 402, that where a person knowing or having reason to believe that the entries in certain village khasras were forged, took copies of those khasras papers and used them as evidence in his favour in a civil suit, he was properly convicted of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine the khasras of which he knew or had reason to be forged and was punishable under Section 471. The use of a document, which is a copy of a document which the applicant knows to be forged or has reason to believe that it is forged is a fraudulent or dishonest use of the forged document. The use of a document, which is a copy of a document which the applicant knows to be forged or has reason to believe that it is forged is a fraudulent or dishonest use of the forged document. It is not necessary that the forged document should itself be produced. When a person knowing that a document is forged takes a copy of such a document and produces the copy, he makes use of the original document representing it to be genuine knowing it fully well that it had been forged. 7. In my judgment, therefore, the applicant has been rightly convicted under See. 471, Indian Panel Code. I therefore allow the revision to the extent that I set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant under Sections 419 and 468, Indian Panel Code. tat maintain his conviction and sentence passed against him under Section 471 Indian Panel Code. The applicant must surrender to his bail and serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 8. Mr. Gopal Behari prays for leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against this judgment. I see no reason to grant the prayer. It is, therefore, rejected.