JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner have been assailed. 2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that the petitioner obtained appointment with Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank as Massenger vide Ex. P/10 on 6.11.1986 on the basis of a forged transfer certificate Ex. P/3 mentioning that he had passed Vlllth Class examination on 15.5.1985. The petitioner knew that the certificate was forged and had thus cheated the Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank and had obtained employment on the basis of this forged document. When the Bank came to know about certificate being so, report Ex. P/2 was lodged at Police Station, Ladnu, District Nagaur where case under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered and after investigation petitioner was prosecuted before Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu who convicted him for offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. For offence under Section 420 IPC the petitioner was sentenced to two rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo one month's regorous imprisonment while for with a fine Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentences was confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur camp Deedwana on 1.12.1999 and the petitioner was sent to jail to undergo sentence. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the conviction under both the sections on the basis of appreciation of evidence but the same cannot be done in view of State of Kerala v. Puttumana illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456 . He submitted that the glaring feature in this case was that the petitioner did not commit any offence as he did not conceal the facts. He had submitted an application to the school concerned to obtain certificate and the same was issued. Counsel also submitted that the clerk of the school who prepared the certificate has not been produced as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. His name being Shyam Kumar Joshi, for which there is no explanation. He had submitted an application to the school concerned to obtain certificate and the same was issued. Counsel also submitted that the clerk of the school who prepared the certificate has not been produced as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. His name being Shyam Kumar Joshi, for which there is no explanation. He also contended that the accused petitioner did not know that the certificate was forged one and that he used it knowing it to be genuine as PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava has not been able to prove conclusively that Ex. P/9 was forged one. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the certificate Ex P/9 was forged one and the same was not issued by Surendra Kumar Srivastava PW 2 whose signatures on Ex. P/9 have been forged. He submitted that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond doubt and the petitioner knew it fully well that he did not pass Class VIIIth examination and even then he obtained Ex. P/9 and used it in obtain employment. He submitted that the interference could be made in the judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate court. 6. I have gone through the entire record. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained employment with the Bank concerned. It was PW-1 Jagdish Prasad who lodged report Ex. P/2 at Police Station Ladnu. PW 3 Shanbhu Dyal, ASI, is the witness before whom first information report Ex. P/2 was lodged. He prepared Ex.P/3. He investigated the matter and obtained a certificate from the Head Master PW- 2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava who stated therein (Ex. P/6) that he did not issue the certificate Ex. P/9. It was PW-4 Mahendra Pal Singh who is the President of Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank, Head Quarter, Jaipur who had directed to lodge the first information report. 7. The most important witness is PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava who is purported to have put signatures on Ex. P/9 and issued the same. But PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava has categorically stated that he did not issue Ex. P/9 neither does it bear his signatures. He has instead stated that he after verifying from the record issued certificate Ex. P/6 according to which he had not issued Ex. P/9 and issued the same. But PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava has categorically stated that he did not issue Ex. P/9 neither does it bear his signatures. He has instead stated that he after verifying from the record issued certificate Ex. P/6 according to which he had not issued Ex. P/9 as petitioner Jagdish Prasad had never appeared as a private candidate of Class Vlllth in the school concerned. He admitted that there was a clerk named Shyam Kumar Joshi who used to prepare transfer certificates in the year 1987 but has not said that Ex. P/9 was prepared by Shyam Kumar Joshi. The certificate Ex. P/9 does not bear the initials of Shyam Kumar Joshi or of any clerk. It is not know as to who had issued this certificate. But it does bear purported signature of Surendra Kumar Srivastava and the seal of school and PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastava has categorically denied his signatures, and stated that he before issuing certificate EX. P/6 had seen the counter foils and thereafter he issued Ex. P/6 which mentions that the petitioner never appeared as a private candidate in VIIIth Class examination. It may be stated that Ex. P/11 is the form submitted by the petitioner to the Bank in which he stated that his date of birth was 5.11.1958 and that his educational qualification was VIIIth pass. It appears that the petitioner was already working with the Bank in some capacity and he in order to obtain a regular appointment of Messenger submitted certificate Ex. P/9, which was definitely not genuine. Since there is nothing on record that Ex. P/9 was issued y Shyam Kumar Joshi, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine Shyam Kumar and it was sufficient on the part of the prosecution to produce Surendra Kumar Srivastava whose purported signatures are said to have been put on Ex. P/9. Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava is the best witness of Ex. P/9 to say categorically that is does not bear his signature. He never issued the certificate Ex. P/9. 8. It was also contended that the certificate was not sent to expert for comparison of the signatures. It may be stated that it was not necessary since Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava himself stated that the document did not contain his signature and he had issued certificate Ex. P/6 to that effect. He never issued the certificate Ex. P/9. 8. It was also contended that the certificate was not sent to expert for comparison of the signatures. It may be stated that it was not necessary since Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava himself stated that the document did not contain his signature and he had issued certificate Ex. P/6 to that effect. In view of the evidence of PW-2 Surendra Kumar Srivastave, the star witness of the prosecution, the case is proved beyond doubt against the petitioner that he not only used a forged document in order to get employment but also prepared/got prepared/obtained Ex. P/9 certificate and dishonestly concealed the facts that he had not passed the VIIIth Class examination. Had he disclosed this fact, he could not have got employment. He thus by deceiving the Bank fraudulently or dishonestly induced the Bank to deliver salary to him and caused harm to it and thus committed the offence of cheating. He also committed the offence under Section 471- A IPC by using a forged documents in order to obtain employment. 9. So far as sentences are concerned, of course the matter relates to the year 1988, but the case being old one is itself not a proper ground to reduce the sentence in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision petition rejected. *******