Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 384 (AP)

Public Prosecutor v. P. VIGNESHWAR RAO

2000-06-09

T.CH.SURYA RAO

body2000
T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor against the judgment dated 24th July, 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class Spl. Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar, in cc No. 256 of 1994. ( 2 ) THE accused-respondent was charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC on the allegation that he forged the SSC certificate for the purpose of seeking appointment in APSRTC (for brevity the Corporation ) as Conductor and used the forged document as genuine certificate with dishonest intention and induced the department by delivering the certificate and therefore liable for punishment for the said offences. He pleaded not guilty of the charges when the charges were read over and explained to him. During the course of the trial, three witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of prosecution and Exs. Pl to P6 were marked. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as seen from the testimony of the witnesses, in brief, is that pursuant to the notification issued by the Divisional Manager, mahabubnagar Division of the Corporation, the accused, and several others applied for the posts of Conductors. The accused applied for the said post enclosing his original SSC certificate Ex. P2 along with the application ex. Pl. During the course of interview, basing on the percentage of marks obtained by him, as can be seen from Ex. P2, he was selected for the post of Conductor. In usual course Ex. P2 was sent for verification to the board of Secondary Education (for brevity the Board ). In the meanwhile, the accused was given posting order and in pursuance thereof, he joined duty as Conductor in the corporation. The Additional Joint Secretary to the Commissioner for Government examinations who was examined as PW2 deposed that pursuant to the letter addressed by Divisional Manager, Mahabubnagar division of the Corporation-PW1, the Officer of the Board got the certificates verified along with the certificates of several other candidates in similar cases. On such verification with the office records of the board, it was found that some of the certificates were not issued by the office and some certificates were issued by the office but the marks therein were tampered. As regards the accused, Ex. On such verification with the office records of the board, it was found that some of the certificates were not issued by the office and some certificates were issued by the office but the marks therein were tampered. As regards the accused, Ex. P2 SSC certificate was not issued by the office and the marks mentioned therein were also not correct as per the office records. The abstract containing the marks secured by the accused was also sent by the witness (PW2) to the Corporation in Ex. P5. Thereupon on a complaint lodged by the authorities of the corporation, a case was registered against the accused respondent, investigated into and charge-sheet was ultimately filed. After perusing the evidence on record, after examining the accused under Section 313 cr. PC and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence made available, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of forgery beyond all reasonable doubt. Having been aggrieved by the said finding of the trial Court, the state has preferred this present appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor firstly contends that the Court below failed to appreciate the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exs. Pl to P6, secondly that a sweeping remark is made that now and then computers commit errors while preparing the material and on that premise the Court below wrongly acquitted the accused. He lastly contends that the certificate per se is a forged certificate and therefore the evidence available on record has got to be appreciated in the light of the said circumstances. ( 5 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused is that the accused forged the ssc certificate with dishonest intention to cheat the Corporation and induced the corporation to act upon the said certificate and appoint him as Conductor in the corporation and used the said forged document as genuine document and that he induced the Board to deliver the certificate after playing fraud over the Board and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. ( 6 ) A perusal of the evidence on record shows that it is not the solitary instance where the accused alone is said to have been forged the document with the intention of cheating and used the forged document as a genuine document. ( 6 ) A perusal of the evidence on record shows that it is not the solitary instance where the accused alone is said to have been forged the document with the intention of cheating and used the forged document as a genuine document. Roughly as many as 225 cases are said to have been detected where there has been the alleged involvement of several persons amounting to offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC, similar to the one in the instant case. The news seemed to be so alarming when it has been said that there has been such a large scale cheating, forgery and other allied offences. In this backdrop what is germane in the circumstances to see is what type of investigation is made in the light of the said alarming news involving such a large scale tampering of the documents and cheating the Corporation; and what type of investigation as such in the situation so demands and warrants. Three witnesses have been examined at the time of the trial. PW1 from the Corporation was examined to speak about the issuance of the notification, conducting of interviews, the persons appeared for the interview and production of certificates which are said to have been fabricated documents; and another from the Board to speak whether the documents were issued by the Board or having been issued by the Board were tampered with subsequently. The evidence of these witnesses is not at all germane for consideration of the case on merits except to prove the steps taken by the Corporation in forwarding these certificates for verification to the Board. ( 7 ) TO prove the gravamen of the charge levelled against the accused there is the testimony of PWs. l and 2. It is apposite to consider the evidence of pw2 Smt. Udayalaxmi, Additional Joint secretary to Commissioner for Government examinations. In her evidence she deposed that the Pass certificates-cum-memoranda of marks of SSC would be sent to the concerned heads of educational institutions where the student studied or appeared for the examination and in turn the student has to take the certificate from the head of the institution. The head of the institution is obliged under Law to enter the identification marks of the student on the original certificate and he should sign and affix seal before delivering it to the student. The head of the institution is obliged under Law to enter the identification marks of the student on the original certificate and he should sign and affix seal before delivering it to the student. From a perusal of the evidence of PW2 it is manifest that the SSC certificate will not be directly issued to the students from the controller of Examinations and they would be sent directly to the concerned head of the institution who in turn delivers them to the candidates after mentioning the identification marks of the candidate and after signing thereon. In the light of this procedure it is now to be seen as to when and where the grave offence of cheating and forgery said to have been perpetrated and by whom. The evidence of PW2 further reveals that for the purpose of delivering the certificates to the concerned student the head of the concerned educational institution is expected to maintain separate record. If the document is said to be a forged one either the offence of forgery should have been perpetrated to the level of the Board or before delivery of the certificate by the concerned educational institution. Certainly it cannot be said that the certificate has been forged either at the stage of issuing the certificate by the Board or at the stage of actual delivery of the certificate by the educational institution but elsewhere. A perusal of the certificate marked as Ex. P2 shows that it bears the signature of the Head master and stamp of the educational institution which is the requirement as per the procedure. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said signature of the head Master or the seal of the concerned educational institution is forged, and therefore the document has been forged subsequently. The Head Master of the educational institution who purported to have signed on the document and affixed the seal has not been cited as witness or examined in this case. There can be no gain-saying that he is a material witness, in order to prove the alleged offence of forgery or the offence of cheating. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing discussion and in the light of the facts and circumstances the perpetration of this grave offence should not have been done single handedly by the accused without the knowledge of one or the other agencies elsewhere. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing discussion and in the light of the facts and circumstances the perpetration of this grave offence should not have been done single handedly by the accused without the knowledge of one or the other agencies elsewhere. If it is done elsewhere, the evidence of the Head Master of the concerned educational institution becomes crucial to show that Ex. P2 certificate has not been passed through the institution. No offence of conspiracy has been alleged by the prosecution. The only circumstance which is emerging from the available evidence on record is that the certificate has not been issued by the controller of Examinations and it has been tampered with subsequently by boosting up the marks. From the abstract of tabulation produced by PW2 it is obvious that the marks as mentioned in the impugned document have not been actually obtained by the candidate and they have been inflated. But the question remains to be seen is as to when and where and by whom this has been done. Owing to the manner in which the case is investigated, it is difficult to gulp in without any pinch of salt that it has been done by the accused himself. If that were be the case then the signature of the Head Master of the concerned educational institution and the stamp pertaining to that institution should have also been forged. As above discussed by me, that in the absence of any evidence from the Head Master of the concerned educational institution that the signature and the stamp pertaining to that institution were forged, the offence cannot be said to have been proved. No investigation has been directed in the angle in which it is required to be done when the allegation is to the effect that there has been perpetration of the offence of cheating and forgery and using of that forged document as genuine one. A show of investigation has been done for the reasons best known to the investigating agency. No attempt has been made even at the level of the trial to examine the concerned officials to prove the perpetration of forgery on a large scale. Therefore, a criminal charge cannot sustain against the accused for the paucity of evidence and for non examination of material witnesses as afore discussed. But this cannot be an end of the case. No attempt has been made even at the level of the trial to examine the concerned officials to prove the perpetration of forgery on a large scale. Therefore, a criminal charge cannot sustain against the accused for the paucity of evidence and for non examination of material witnesses as afore discussed. But this cannot be an end of the case. When once perpetration is done by an unknown offender, he cannot be allowed to go scot free without being unearthed. The matter can be investigated at the departmental level by the concerned departments involved in the process and identify those who are responsible for the perpetration of large scale fraud and they should be departmentally proceeded against notwithstanding the fact that the criminal case filed against the accused has failed. I hope and trust that the authorities would open their eyes and start further investigation in this case so as to unearth the large scale fraud perpetrated at the departmental level. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, there are no compelling circumstances persuading this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In the result, the appeal fails and it is therefore dismissed.