Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 161 (RAJ)

Jata Shankar Jha v. State of Rajasthan

2000-02-09

MOHD.YAMIN

body2000
Honble YAMIN, J.–Accused petitioner Jata Shankar was convicted for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 170 IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara by his judgment dated 16.12.1986. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara on 7.10.1991. He preferred this revision petition. (2). Briefly stated petitioner Jata Shankar was a Lower Division Clerk in Education Department. On 29.12.1973 he submitted a forged order purported to have been issued by the Director, Education, Bikaner in which the petitioner was shown as a Central Government Employee and was ordered to be promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk. This is Ex. P/1. On the basis of this order the Dy. Director, Education Department, Udaipur vide order Ex. P/2 promoted the accused petitioner and posted him as Upper Division Clerk in Government Secondary School, Nogama District Banswara. The petitioner joined there. He submitted his last pay certificate which was again a forged document and on the basis of which he was given more pay and allowances. Then on 10.3.1974 the petitioner produced a forged confidential letter Ex. P/4 purported to have been written by Director, Education Department, Bikaner ordering the Head Master that the petitioner may be paid his salary from April to July, 1974 from the students fund and that after regular bills of salary of the petitioner were passed the amount withdrawn on the basis of regular salary bills be deposited in the students fund. The petitioner again produced a document dated 28.12.1973 according to which leave from 4.3.1973 to 15.4.1974 and 25.4.1974 to 14.8.1974 was sanctioned and the Head Master was directed that the advance salary be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner was not satisfied only with this forgery but he produced a confidential forged letter Ex.P/28 before Jagan Singh Yadav, Head Master of Government Secondary School, Nogama in which it was ordered that salary of five teachers named therein be obtained from treasury and the amount be paid to ASI No. 775 (petitioner) in cash and receipt be obtained from him. It was also mentioned in the letter that the amount be sent in cash and may not be entered in regular cash book instead a supplementary cash book be opened and entry be made therein and the same be handed over to secret ASI No. 775. This letter was purportedly signed by Ramesh Vijay, Director of Education. Shri Jagan Singh Head Master had a suspicion on this letter and he wrote a Demi Official letter to the Director, Education and handed over the same to the petitioner. When he did not receive any reply he sent a reminder. That also went unacknowledged. The Head Master then contacted the District Education Officer, Director Education and Shri Ramesh Vijay as well as other officers of the Education Department and ultimately it revealed that all the papers were forged, that there was no secret official in the Education Department nor the petitioner was ever promoted. The petitioner had obtained a sum of Rs. 3077.11 on the basis of all these forged documents and had thus committed criminal breach of trust and forgery by preparing and using forged documents. The petitioner posed himself to be a secret ASI No. 775 while he was merely a Lower Division Clerk of the Education Department. (3). The case was registered, investigated and during the search a number of seals as well as other incriminating items were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He was tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara for various charges and ultimately only two charges were proved against him. He was convicted and sentenced as stated above. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under Section 170 IPC was not proved against the petitioner as he was a Lower Division Clerk in the Education Department and the lower courts have held him to be so. He never pretended that he was a secret ASI. (6). To this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record speaks volumes against the petitioner. I have seen statements of various witnesses by which it is well proved that though the petitioner was Lower Division Clerk yet he pretended to hold the post of secret ASI No. 775 in the Education Department. (6). To this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record speaks volumes against the petitioner. I have seen statements of various witnesses by which it is well proved that though the petitioner was Lower Division Clerk yet he pretended to hold the post of secret ASI No. 775 in the Education Department. The petitioner knew it very well that he did not held such office as there was no such office in the department, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 170 IPC is of no avail to him. (7). So far as offence under Section 471 IPC is concerned, I find from the judgments of the courts below that the prosecution was able to prove only Ex. P/28 to be a forged document and the same was handed over to the Head Master of Government Secondary School, Nogama PW-7 Jagan Singh. This document bears the signature of Ramesh Vijay who appeared as PW-16 before the trial Magistrate and stated that the document did not bear his signatures, though Ex.P/28 bears the purported seal of the Director of Primary and Secondary Education. Shri Ramesh Vijay was not posted as Director of Education on that date. Instead he was Academic Officer posted with Rajasthan Text Books Board, Jaipur on that date. The petitioner thus while forging the document forgot as to who was the Director of Education on that date. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted and sentenced as the documents were not sent to expert for examination. Needless to say that it was not necessary to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly, such a point cannot be raised here in the revision as Honble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., (1), has held that evidence once appreciated by trial court and reappreciated by Sessions Judge cannot be further appreciated by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, I find that the courts below have not committed any error of law in convicting the accused petitioner. (8). Consequently, I find that the courts below have not committed any error of law in convicting the accused petitioner. (8). So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Manzur Faizu Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2), submitted that a leniency may be shown to the petitioner with regard to his sentence and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone (which is hardly about 46 days), as the offence alleged was committed some time in 1974 and the matter is being finally decided after 26 years. I am of the view that in this case the learned Magistrate has himself taken a very lenient view and to reduce the sentence of even six months will be misplaced sympathy when the offence of 471 IPC is proved beyond doubt against the petitioner. The judgment of Supreme Court does not apply on the facts of this case as the accused in Supreme Court case had submitted a bill regarding Leave Travel Concession without actually undertaking travelling. Here in this case the petitioner who is said to have come from the Police Department to the Education Department on transfer brought/prepared even the seals of the Police Department and it is said that he used those seals in forging the documents. He in order to see his own benefit not only produced Ex.P/28 a forged document but also tried to obtain money of the salary of other teachers by producing this documents I am not inclined to reduce even a days sentence in such a serious matter. (9). Consequently the revision fails. It is hereby dismissed. Bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled. He shall surrender before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara and if he does not do so the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara is directed to issue a warrant of arrest against him, procure his attendance and then send him to custody to undergo the remaining part of sentence.