JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, dated July 14, 1990 holding petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 417/467/471 Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 417 Indian Penal Code and one year under section 467 as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month as also to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to undergo further RI for one months under Section 471 Indian Penal Code. This order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate has since been confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated July 15, 1991. 2. Shortly put, it has been the prosecution case that Secretary of the Punjab Education Board, Mohali intimated the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot that the certificates of matriculation of petitioner and three other persons were found by it bogus. On this, the SSP referred the matter to the SSP, Ferozepur along with the verification of the Punjab Education Board and bogus certificates of matriculation for registration of a case against the petitioner under Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, prosecution examined Head Constable Gurdeep Singh as PW1, Tara Singh Hundal as PW2, Buta Ram Superintendent as PW3, Santosh Puri as PW4, Surjit Singh ASI as PW5, SI Des Raj as PW6, SI Raj Pal as PW7 and Head Constable Major Singh as PW6. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and further stated that he was innocent. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 5. It is significant to mention here that petitioner, while making his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, admitted having appeared before the Police Recruitment Board for appointment as a police constable. He did not dispute the production of matriculation certificate, said to have been forged. He only denied having fabricated the same himself. 5. It is significant to mention here that petitioner, while making his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, admitted having appeared before the Police Recruitment Board for appointment as a police constable. He did not dispute the production of matriculation certificate, said to have been forged. He only denied having fabricated the same himself. The fact, as to whether the certificate produced by him with a view to secure an employment in the police department was forged, was sought to be established by the prosecution by examining Buta Ram, Superintendent, Punjab Education Board as PW3. He brought the record of this office including the Gazette notification and deposed that the certificate, Ex.PD was bogus. Tara Singh Hundal, Secretary, Punjab Education Board, who appeared as PW2, also testified that the certificates of matriculation were issued under his signatures but certificate Ex.PD did not bear his signatures. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no scope to interfere insofar as order of conviction is concerned. 6. Ms. Anu Chatrath, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that the prosecution has brought no evidence on record to show that it is the petitioner who had fabricated the disputed certificate. This argument has only to be stated so as to be rejected. There could be none else to gain anything by fabricating the certificate, Ex.PD. There was no necessity to bring on record any evidence that might show that someone had been seen the petitioner fabricating the document in dispute. The very fact that document, i.e., certificate belongs to petitioner and he had produced it before the concerned authorities in his endeavour to secure a job in the police department, is in itself enough to conclusively prove that the certificate was fabricated by him alone. Insofar as other contention of learned counsel that since the petitioner was 21 years of age at the time of commission of crime and happened to be first offender and further that he had undergone agony of the trial, spanned over a period of more than fifteen years, he should be extended the benefit of provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, can be accepted, even though half way through. It is a serious matter where the petitioner forged a certificate showing that he was matriculate with a view to secure job in the police department. In view of this, he can not be dealt with so leniently to let him off on probation. The ends of justice shall, however, be met if the sentence imposed upon him under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from one year to six months each. Indeed petitioner has gone through an agonising trial spanned over a period of 15 years and he was only 21 years of age at the time of commission of crime. This revision, insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned, is allowed. As mentioned above, while maintaining the order of conviction against him, it is ordered that the petitioner would undergo R.I. for a period of six months under Sections 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code which shall be concurrent. The order of fine is, however, maintained and so are the consequences for non-payment thereof. Revision allowed.