Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ranchi under Sections 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, for having forged a number of documents between the 29th October, 1959 and the 1st week of May, 1960, and for having used as genuine certain documents, which he then knew or had reasons to believe to be forged documents, on or about the first week of May, 1980. On trial, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 466 on the ground, that the prosecution has failed to prove that he had himself forged the documents in question. The appellant has, however, been convicted under Section 471 for having fraudulently used as genuine these documents. He has been sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and he has also been fined to the extent of Rs. 2000. It has been ordered that in default of payment of fine, the appellant must undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts are as follows: On the 20th June, 1960, Sri A. Rama Murthy (P. W. 12), an Administrative Officer of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi, sent a written report to the officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police station, Ranchi, milking the following allegations: It was stated in that report that the appellant had been working as caretaker mm security officer of the Corporation since the 20th October, 1959. He had filed an application for appointment, stating that (a) he had passed the Intermediate Examination from the U. P. Board in Second Division, (b) he was a Viceroys Commissioned Officer in the Army, (c) he was released from the Army on account of demobilisation, and (d) he had served in the U. P. Police Battalion as an Inspector of Police and he was discharged with exemplary character from the service due to reduction in the Police force. On the basis of this information supplied, the appellant had been appointed to the post of Caretaker cum Security Officer. After he had joined, he was asked to produce the discharge certificates from the Army and the U. P. Police Battalion for verification. At first the appellant had stated that these certificates had been lost, but in order to complete his service book, he was again asked to produce the necessary certificates. After he had joined, he was asked to produce the discharge certificates from the Army and the U. P. Police Battalion for verification. At first the appellant had stated that these certificates had been lost, but in order to complete his service book, he was again asked to produce the necessary certificates. Thereafter, the appellant had produced a number of documents, mentioned in the written report (These documents have been marked during the trial as Exhibits I(a), I(b), I(c) and I(d). Another document has been brought on the record as Exhibit I, which was not mentioned in paragraph 2 of the written report). It was further mentioned in the report, that on enquiry, it had been found that the appellant had furnished fabricated documents, and, therefore, he was guilty of various offences under the law. It was requested that a case may be commenced against the appellant. On this report, a formal first information report was drawn up by Gopinath Khare (P. W. 11), who was then a junior Sub-Inspector of Police at the police station. Investigation was taken up by this officer immediately and he went to the residence of the appellant and arrested him. On the 21st June, 1960, P. W. 11 went to the office of the Administrative Officer of the Corporation, where certain papers were handed over to him by P. W. 12 and a seizure list was prepared. After completing investigation, chargesheet was submitted on the 1st October, 1960, by P. W. 11. The prosecution case given by P. W. 12 is substantially to the same effect. Only a few more details have been mentioned as follows. According to this witness, he had received an application for appointment, submitted by the appellant, which has been marked as Exhibit A, dated the 7th September, 1959. This application had passed through the official channel, and ultimately, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant had been appointed on the order of the Chairman of the Corporation. After the appellant had joined the post, mentioned above, on the 20th October, 1959, he was asked to produce the papers mentioned by him in his application. After the appellant had been asked to file copies of his lost certificates, P.W. 12 had directed the Assistant Administrative Officer, A.K. Sengupta (P.W. 1), to prepare the appellants service record from the certificates. After the appellant had been asked to file copies of his lost certificates, P.W. 12 had directed the Assistant Administrative Officer, A.K. Sengupta (P.W. 1), to prepare the appellants service record from the certificates. According to P. W. 12, A.K. Sengupta (P.W. 1) had given him Exhibits I, I(a), I(c), I(d) and V. For certain reasons mentioned by him, suspicion of P.W. 12 was aroused and enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of the documents. Replies had been made in due course regarding these enquiries. According to P.W.I, he had asked the appellant for certificates regarding his age, qualifications and military qualifications and in due course, the appellant had supplied P. W. 1 with certain documents named by this witness, which have been marked as Exhibits I, I(a) and I(b). P.W. 1 had prepared the appellants service book on the documents supplied by him. Substantially, these were the allegations against the appellant upon which the two charges were framed. 3. The defence case was that the appellant knew nothing about Exhibits I, I(a), I(b), I(c) and I(d). In his statement before the (earned trial Judge, the appellant stated that he had not produced those documents before the Heavy Engineering Corporation. He admitted to have made an application for appointment, which has been marked as Exhibit A, but he denied to have filed any other paper at all. According to the appellant, he had been falsely implicated in the case, as he had some altercation with P.W.12. The appellant further stated before the learned trial Judge that there had been a case of theft at the place of one Sri Verma, and in that connection also, he had some dispute with P.W. 12. As stated earlier, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code only, acquitting him of the charge under Sec. 466. 4. In view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, to be dealt with hereafter, it is necessary, first of all, to ascertain what documents the appellant had given to P. W. 1 if any, after the appellant had been asked to supply copies of the necessary certificates. This clarification has become necessary, in view of some discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws. This clarification has become necessary, in view of some discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 12, as P. W 1 has referred to those documents as Exhibits 1 to (sic), whereas P. W. 12 has included Exhibits I(c) and I(d). It appears to me that although P. W. 1 has referred to the documents filed by the appellant as Exhibits I to I(b) only, apparently, he had omitted to mention Exhibits I(c) and I(d), which had also been filed by the appellant. This is clear from what P. W. 1 has stated in paragraph 6 of his deposition. Referring to the seizure of some papers by the police from the office of the Heavy Engineering Corporation in his presence, the witness has deposed that the police had seized papers, including Exhibits I to I(b) and some other papers. It is stated that a seizure list was prepared. Now, this seizure list (Exhibit 8) shows that amongst other documents, Exhibits I(c) and I(d) had also been seized. The evidence of P. W. 11 shows that he had seized those two papers also. In evidence, this witness has referred to those documents by their exhibit marks, and Exhibits I(c) and, I(d) have been specifically mentioned in paragraph 5 of the deposition. Thus, it seems that P. W. 12 has truly stated that P. W, 1 had given him documents including Exhibits I(c) and I(d), (It may be mentioned that in this context, P. W. 12 has, in his turn, inadvertently omitted Exhibit 1(b)). From the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it is clear that everyone understood in the trial court that the prosecution case had been that the appellant had produced all the five exhibits, marked as Exhibits I to I(d). The learned trial judge, in paragraph 10 of his judgment, has referred to the prosecution case, based on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 12, being that the appellant had produced Exhibits I to I(d). In the examination of the appellant by the learned trial Judge, it was specifically put to the appellant that the prosecution case was that he had forged Exhibits I to I(d). In the charge framed under Sec. 466 of the Penal Code, all these five documents had also been specifically mentioned. In the examination of the appellant by the learned trial Judge, it was specifically put to the appellant that the prosecution case was that he had forged Exhibits I to I(d). In the charge framed under Sec. 466 of the Penal Code, all these five documents had also been specifically mentioned. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, drawn my attention to the charge framed under Sec. 471, where Exhibit I(b) has been omitted. Comparing the two charges, it appears to me that the charge under Section 471 has, again, inadvertently omitted to make reference to Exhibit I(b). It is clear that the charge under Sec. 471 was not carefully drawn up, as after item No. (a), mentioning therein memos Nos. 39/8, 3/58, dated the 30th August, 1958, item No. (b) has been omitted altogether, and then items Nos. (c) and (d) followed. Item No. (b) in the charge under Sec. 466 was with reference to Exhibit I(b). But, in spite of these confusions, what was the prosecution case was clear to the parties and to the court, and the case put to the appellant in his examination was with reference to all the five exhibits, namely, Exhibits I to I(d). I would, therefore, proceed on the footing that the prosecution case was that the appellant had given to P. W. 1 the five documents, which have been marked as Exhibits I to I(d). 5. I will now deal with the argument of the learned counsel with reference to the merits of the case, dealing with the evidence of the principal witnesses, who are P.Ws. 1 and 12. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no necessity for the appellant to have produced those disputed documents, as he had already been employed and he had already joined his duties from the 20th October, 1959. On the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 12, however this contention cannot be accepted as valid. According to P. W. 12, he had demanded copies of the certificates for the purpose of having the service book of the appellant prepared. According to P. W. 1, the service book had actually been prepared after the appellant had produced the relevant documents. According to P. W. 1, moreover, every employee had to file the certificates in accordance with a general circular also. According to P. W. 1, the service book had actually been prepared after the appellant had produced the relevant documents. According to P. W. 1, moreover, every employee had to file the certificates in accordance with a general circular also. It is clear, therefore, that in this particular case, P. W. 12 has given the correct state of affairs, tinder which the copies of the certificates had been asked for. Learned counsel for the appellant has then relied upon the defence case, that the appellant had been falsely implicated. In my opinion, this contention is also without substance. P. W. 12 has stated in his very examination-in-chief, that in the beginning of 1960, a theft had been committed in the residential place of an administrative officer, and the appellant was showing particular interest in saving the man, who was being suspected in that connection. The entire allegation of the appellant made in his statement before the learned trial Judge was against P. W. 12, but nothing appears to have been put to this witness regarding the defence case of false implication. All that was elicited from P. W. 12 was that he did not remember if the appellant had filed his certificates before or after the theft had been committed in the house of a junior administrative officer. Moreover, some of the allegations made by the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge were capable of proof. No attempt was, however, made to prove any such allegation. Therefore, nothing has been indicated by the learned counsel for the appellant for disbelieving the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 12, upon which the prosecution case is mainly founded. 6. With respect to the prosecution case that the documents filed by the appellant were not genuine, the evidence is as follows: Prithwiraj Chauhan (P. W 6) has deposed in connection with Exhibits I and I(a). The evidence of this witness clearly shows that Exhibits I and I(a) were not genuine documents. According to this witness, the certificate bearing Roll No. 49732, of which a copy has been filed by the appellant (Exhibit I), had been issued to one Ram Abhilakh, who was a student of Shyam Sundar Saraswati High School of Fyzabad. The serial number of that certificate was 32213. According to this witness, the certificate bearing Roll No. 49732, of which a copy has been filed by the appellant (Exhibit I), had been issued to one Ram Abhilakh, who was a student of Shyam Sundar Saraswati High School of Fyzabad. The serial number of that certificate was 32213. This number also appears on Exhibit I. With respect to Exhibit I(a), P. W. 8 has deposed that Kumari Rajeshwari Chand had sat for the Intermediate Examination of 195S. Roll No. 749 had been assigned to her; but that student had failed in that examination and no certificate for passing this examination had been issued. Apart from the number 749 on Exhibit I(a), another number appears as serial No. 19815. P. W. 6 has deposed that the certificates serial No. 19815 of passing had been issued in the name of one Kailash Nath Bhargava of Queens Anglo Sanskrit Intermediate College of Lucknow, having roll No. 31711. It is clear, therefore, that two documents. Exhibits I and I(a), which are not genuine, were produced by the appellant after he had been employed in the Corporation, With respect to Exhibits I(b) and I(c), evidence has been given by Babu Ram Misser (P. W. 3) and M.E. de Gunha (P. W. 5). In connection with Exhibit I(c), P. W. 3 has deposed that there was no such commandant as G.S. Mathur in 1958. Exhibit I(c) is supposed to have been issued by G. S. Mathur as commandant of U. P. Police Battalion, Lucknow. P. W. 5 has deposed that on the 30th August, 1958, when Exhibits I (c) and I(b) are supposed to have been granted by G.S. Mathur, he was the Commander of the 3rd Battalion, P. A. C., Lucknow. According to P. W. 3, however, there was no establishment known as U. P. Police Battalion, Lucknow. According to P. W. 5, no document had been issued from his office, that is to say, from the 3rd Battalion, P. A. C., Lucknow, to the appellant. During the period of the service of P. W. 5, from the 26th December, 1957 to the 5th January, 1961, there was no such person as Satya Narain Misra, as an Inspector of his Battalion. It is clear, therefore, that Exhibits I(b) and I(c) were also not genuine documents. Coming to Exhibit I(d), the witness who has deposed about this, is Subedar Kedarnath (P. W. 13). It is clear, therefore, that Exhibits I(b) and I(c) were also not genuine documents. Coming to Exhibit I(d), the witness who has deposed about this, is Subedar Kedarnath (P. W. 13). According to him, the purported signature of Major E. Solomon on Exhibit I(d) was not his signature. Major Solomons signature was of an entirely different type. It is dear that Exhibit I(d) was also not a genuine document produced by the appellant. As it was not the appellants case that Exhibits I(b), I(c) and I(d) had been issued by the Officers under whose signatures they were purported to have been issued, it must be held that these three documents were not genuine. The conclusion is that all the five documents, which had been put to the appellant in his examination before the learned trial Judge, were forged and fabricated documents. The prosecution case has, therefore, been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge that the appellant had filed the five documents in question after he had been asked to do so. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in this case, the maximum sentence that could have been passed against the appellant, for his conviction under Sec. 471 of the Penal Code was of two years imprisonment, apart from the question of fine. This contention is based on an interpretation of Sec. 471, read with Sections 468, 464 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is urged that if the prosecution case be accepted, then the appellant may have committed forgery, within the meaning of Sec. 463 read with Sec. 464, and therefore, the only punishment which could have been awarded was one under Section 471 read with Sec. 465. Reliance is placed by learned counsel upon the decision of Queen Empress V/s. Khandusingh, ILR 22 Bom 768. It is not possible to accept this contention, once it is held that the appellant had produced Exhibits I(c) and I(d) also, along with Exhibits I to I(b). Exhibit I(d), at least, was a document which was purported to have been made by a public servant in his official capacity. This document was a duplicate discharge certificate, which showed that one Satya Narain Mishra, son of Sri Ishwar Din Mishra, had been discharged on the 15th September, 1956. The rank shown was that of a Subedar. Exhibit I(d), at least, was a document which was purported to have been made by a public servant in his official capacity. This document was a duplicate discharge certificate, which showed that one Satya Narain Mishra, son of Sri Ishwar Din Mishra, had been discharged on the 15th September, 1956. The rank shown was that of a Subedar. This Satya Narain Mishra must have reference to the appellant, if it be held that the appellant had produced this document. Therefore, the offence under Section 471 in this case must be that the appellant had fraudulently used as genuine a document (exhibit I(d)), which purported to be a document made by a public servant in his official capacity, knowing it to be a forged document. The conviction and the sentence under Sec. 471 are therefore, quite legal. The decision of the Bombay High Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, is, really of no avail to him. The accused in that case had been convicted under Sec. 471 read with Sec. 466 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment only. It was held in that case, that, in any event, the act of the accused fell within the purview of Section 463 of the Penal Code. The offence was held to be punishable under Section 471. Even on facts, the case of the Bombay High Court is not in pari materia. It is not clear from the decision of the Bombay High Court, as to whether the certificate signed by Major OSullivan was one which could have come within the words, "a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity". Then, the second document, namely, the discharge certificate had really been issued by that officer and only interpolations had been made by the accused. Therefore, the forgery in that case consisted in making interpolations, altering the nature of the document, which was not wholly fabricated. So far as the instant case is concerned, Exhibit I(d) purports to have been granted by the Officer-in-charge of the Records of M. D. S. C. purporting to act in discharge of official duties. In my opinion, the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sec. 471 of the Code and the sentence is not illegal. In view of the facts and circumstances, the sentence does not appear to be too severe either. In my opinion, the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sec. 471 of the Code and the sentence is not illegal. In view of the facts and circumstances, the sentence does not appear to be too severe either. The appeal must, therefore, fail and it is dismissed.