K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the Judgment dated 07-11-1997 in c. C. No. 12 of 1996 passed by the Judicial first Clsss Magistrate, Guntakal, Anantapur district, which was confirmed in Judgment dated 14-02-2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1997 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, ananthapur. ( 2 ) THE Criminal Revision Petitioner was convicted in C. C. No. 12 of 1996 on the file of judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal, anantapur District vide its order dated 7-11-1997 for the charges under Sections 465, 417 and 193 IPC and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 193 ipc, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer SI for two months for the offence under section 417 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence under Section 465 IPC respectively. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the same, the accused preferred appeal before the III Additional sessions Judge, Anantapur in Criminal appeal No. 106 of 1997. After considering the evidence on record, appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentences recorded by the Judicial First Class magistrate, Guntakal by judgment dated 14-02-2002. Aggrieved by the same the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. ( 4 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision case are that the revision petitioner-A1 studied intermediate with MPC during the year 1989-91 and appeared for the final examination, conducted by the Intermediate board with Hall Ticket No. 882544 in March, 1991, but he failed in three papers, but he sought for admission in B. Com degree course by producing a pass certificate. The principal said to have received an anonymous letter enclosing a copy of the mark sheet of A-1 relating to intermediate. Thereupon the principal lodged a report to the police, the police registered the case and investigated into. ( 5 ) TO substantiate the case of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked. The lower court, after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the A-1 forged Ex. Thereupon the principal lodged a report to the police, the police registered the case and investigated into. ( 5 ) TO substantiate the case of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked. The lower court, after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the A-1 forged Ex. P-3 pass certificate-cum-marks memo, which stood in the name of Revision petitioner and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has to establish that Ex. P-3 was forged by none else, but by accused alone and there is no evidence to show that Ex. P-3 was forged by the accused. The question of conviction under Section 417 IPC does not arise, because it is a consequential offence to forgery, which includes deception. The offence under section 193 IPC has no application because the alleged production of document cannot be treated as evidence. It is only a submission of application and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prays that the conviction and offences imposed by the lower court and confirmed by the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the public Prosecutor contended that the accused himself produced Ex. P-3 document and got admission into the degree college and on the report given by the principal the police found that Ex. P-3 was forged and the accused himself produced, who is beneficiary and that the presumption can be drawn that it was forged by the accused or none else. After considering the entire evidence on record the trial court as well as appellate Court gave a concurrent findings as such did not suffer any legal infirmities and the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentences recorded by he trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. ( 8 ) THE accused is convicted firstly under section 465 IPC. Section 465 IPC reads as follows:"465 IPC. Punishment for forgery: whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both. "section 463 IPC reads as follows: 463 IPC. ( 8 ) THE accused is convicted firstly under section 465 IPC. Section 465 IPC reads as follows:"465 IPC. Punishment for forgery: whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both. "section 463 IPC reads as follows: 463 IPC. Forgery: (Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury), to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Except production of Ex. P-3 there is no evidence to show that this document was in fact forged by the Accused himself or none else. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in Manilal v. State of Kerala wherein it was Held that:"in other words, such document was forged with the connivance of the revision petitioner and then such document was used as genuine one in transferring the property to P. W. 7. In the instant case, practically there is no evidence as to, who forged Ex. P-8". In the decision reported I. T. Commissioner, bombay v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court Held that:"when an accused person has been brought under Section 471 IPC, the prosecution ought to have established that a forged document has been used by him as a genuine one. In the absence of the proof with regard to the forgery, which is attracted by Section 467 IPC then no conviction under Section 471 would be based on. "there is a strong suspicion against the accused to how that Ex. P-3 might have been forged by the accused or none else. The accused sought admission into the degree college by producing the document under suspicion. However, strong suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. The legal proof is lacking in this case to show that Ex. P-3 was forged by the accused and none else. This important aspect has been overlooked by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The accused sought admission into the degree college by producing the document under suspicion. However, strong suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. The legal proof is lacking in this case to show that Ex. P-3 was forged by the accused and none else. This important aspect has been overlooked by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. As such the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) COMING to the evidence under section 417 IPC, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh and another Held that: in view of all the above, we agree with shri Jethmalani that the allegations made in the complaint, even if true, do not make out the case of forgery. Now, if forgery be not there, allegation under section 420 would fail because the allegation in para 5 of the complaint is that by "forgoing the said book" deception was caused and members of the public were induced to purchase the same. So, forgery is the principal allegation; cheating being a consequential offence. If forgery goes, cheating cannot stand. So, the complaint does not make out a case under any of the three Sections, namely, 420, 465 and 468. It maybe pointed out that 468 is intimately connected with 420 and 465. " in this case also the evidence does not make out a case of forgery. The evidence under section 417 IPC would Fail because the evidence is that by producing the document the deception was caused. Hence, in view of the above decisions of the apex Court, the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court and Appellate Court under section 417 IPC have to be set aside. ( 11 ) THE remaining Section 193 IPC for which the accused is convicted reads as:"and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. "the above section makes it clear that whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence he shall be punished. It is not denied or disputed that Ex. P-3 is fabricated or false document. "the above section makes it clear that whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence he shall be punished. It is not denied or disputed that Ex. P-3 is fabricated or false document. When it is also in the evidence that it stands in the name of the petitioner and it is also in the evidence of Principal that this document was produced by the accused, therefore, convicting the appellant under section 193 IPC cannot said to be illegal or improper. It is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence on record. P. W. 1 also stated that the principal, after making enquires gave a report and they found that ex. P-3 was found to be not a genuine document. P. W. 2 is the Principal who stated that the accused submitted Ex. P-2 along with Ex. P-3 pass certificate-cum-marks memo for intermediate examination. P. W. 3 was the Principal working in the Junior college where under A-1 Revision Petitioner studied intermediate. He categorically stated that A-1 failed in the intermediate examination. P. W. 6 is an investigating officer who examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. So, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 193 IPC. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court under Section 193 IPC. The incident took place in the year 1993 i. e. 10 years have been lapsed. A-l got married and having children and also having old parents. In similar circumstances the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Tulsibhai Jiv Abhai chanyani v. State of Gujarat wherein it was held:" (4) We have heard the parties. In our view it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used the duplicate certificate with changes, as a true certificate knowing it to be false in material particular and there by got admission. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction. However, looking to the nature of the offence and the fact that the appellant s past and present records have been good and the fact that he had already undergone. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. "in this case also he produced a false certificate and got admission. However, looking to the nature of the offence and the fact that the appellant s past and present records have been good and the fact that he had already undergone. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. "in this case also he produced a false certificate and got admission. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence can be reduced to that of already undergone. ( 12 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision case is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court under section 465 and 417 IPC are set aside, but the conviction under Section 193 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of six months is reduced to that of sentence already undergone by the accused. With the above modification, the criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.