Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 737 (KER)

Thomas Chandy v. State of Kerala

2005-11-24

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, R.BASANT

body2005
Judgment :- These are the appeals by accused 1 and 5, who stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 466, 468, 471 and 420 IPC in Sessions case No.76/92 on the file of the VI Addl. (Spl.) Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. They have been sentenced for 2 years each under the aforesaid count except under Section 120(B) and ordered to run substantive sentence concurrently. Though they were charged along with three more others, accused No.2, the father of accused No.1 was died even prior to the commencement of trial and accused 3 and 4 were acquitted. Accused No.1, the appellant in Crl.A.No.9/93 was a student at the material time and accused No.5, the appellant in Crl.A.No.22/93 was an officer working as Asst. Registrar in the University of Kerala. 2. The prosecution case was that, all the accused along with CW1, an accused turned approver hatched a conspiracy in order to fabricate Ext.P73 mark list of Pre degree examination as if issued to accused No.1 in order to have sufficient marks as necessary for admission to MBBS course in J.J.M Medical College, Devangara in Karnataka State and used it as a genuine one in order to obtain admission in the said Medical College. According to the prosecution, in the original marklist that had been issued to accused No.1 on his passing Pre-degree examination he did not secure 50% marks in total for the three optional subjects namely, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He secured only 55 marks out of 150 for Physics, 65 out of 150 for Chemistry and 95 out of 150 for Biology, thus forming a total of 215 marks out of 450 with a grand total of, including for languages, 459 marks out of 900. Ext.P73, the allegedly forged mark list which was made use of by accused No.1 to get admission in the medical college reveals 76 marks out of 150 for Physics, thereby varying the subject total of optional subjects to 236 out of 450 and the grand total to 480 out of 900. This is the alleged forgery said to be committed by the accused. 3. The evidences in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW65 and documentary evidences Exts.P1 to P97. This is the alleged forgery said to be committed by the accused. 3. The evidences in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW65 and documentary evidences Exts.P1 to P97. The court below appreciating the evidence on record including the statement given by CW1, the approver, came to the conclusion that the appellants were party to the conspiracy in order to fabricate Ext.P73 and they have hatched a conspiracy to make use such document as a genuine one to obtain admission for accused No.1 in J.J.M, Medical College, Devangiri and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The defence urged in the court below by both the appellants are reagitated in this appeal by them. It is contended by accused No.1 that, though he could not obtain 50% mark for the optional subject, when his result of Pre-degree examination was declared on 11.6.1979, his father advised to have a revaluation of the papers for the optional subjects. An application Ext.P33 was accordingly made and in anticipation of improved marks on such revaluation, at the instance of his father, accused No.2, he made Ext.P64 application for admission to medical course in the aforesaid Medical College and later when his father handed over a modified mark list Ext.P73, taking it as one genuinely obtained on revaluation, he submitted to the Medical College and thus obtained and continued his studies. Therefore, he did not have any knowledge at any point of time that Ext.P73 was a forged document. Therefore, he cannot found guilty of any of the offence as found by the court below. 5. The defence taken by accused No.5 is that, though he was an officer of the University, no evidence to implicate him in the offence charged is revealed in this case except Exts.P6,P7 and P35, which were said to be recovered on a search made in his office and residence. It is submitted that when PW62 conducted search on 19.12.81 in the presence of PW59, the Controller of Examination in the office table and Almirah used by him in the premises of the University of Kerala, he had not been present there. Even admittedly as seen from Ext.P87 inventory prepared by PW62, the table and the almirah were not closed and the keys were available on the table. Exts.P6 and P7 were said to be recovered in his absence from the said table. Even admittedly as seen from Ext.P87 inventory prepared by PW62, the table and the almirah were not closed and the keys were available on the table. Exts.P6 and P7 were said to be recovered in his absence from the said table. That cannot attribute any evidence to prove guilt on him, it is submitted. Equally so is the recovery of Ext.P35, a memo of revaluation addressed from the University to accused No.1 recovered from a table in the residence of accused No.5, whose wife was present at that time in the house, who was also another Asst. Registrar like him in the service of University. Therefore, that recovery cannot be of any relevance so far as he is concerned, to prove that he had committed any offence of forgery or conspiracy along with the other accused. It is further submitted that those recoveries cannot be regarded as one under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that before conducting the search in the office on 19.12.1981 no permission had been obtained from the head of office namely the Registrar. An evasive statement is made by PW62 to that effect but that permission had never been produced. It is further submitted that no independent evidence is available in this case with respect to the alleged recovery of Ext.P6 and P7 on 19.12.1981 and Ext.P35 on 17.12.1981. It is further submitted that as regards the recovery of Ext.P35 there is no other evidence than that of PW60, the police officer who conducted such recovery. No independent evidence is available. The evidence tendered through PW59 to prove the recovery of Exts.P6 and P7 stated to be effected on 19.12.1981 cannot be said to be a valid evidence because of the union rivalry that accused No.5 was faced at the relevant point of time. Therefore, these recoveries cannot be made use of to find guilt on him for the offence as found by the court below. Any how, the court below did not accept these contentions. The court beow had at that point of time the added advantage of the statement of CW1, which can be relied on at that point of time, in order to prove the conspiracy, whereas we have not act upon it because of the pronouncement of the Full Bench in this case itself. The court beow had at that point of time the added advantage of the statement of CW1, which can be relied on at that point of time, in order to prove the conspiracy, whereas we have not act upon it because of the pronouncement of the Full Bench in this case itself. Therefore, we have to consider the evidence on record except Ext.P83 deposition given by CW1 at the committal stage, who could not be examined at the trial stage as he was no more. 6. First of all, we have to consider whether Ext.P73 is a valid document. It is making use of Ext.P73, now admittedly, accused No.1 had obtained admission in the Medical College, Devangere. Apart from admission, that is also proved on the strength of Ext.P71, attested copy of the said mark list and also Ext.P67 interview slip wherein accused No.1 had entered the marks as contained in Ext.P73 and also the evidence of PW.45, Manager of the Medical College and also PW57, the Principal of the J.J.M Medical College, Devengere, who had deposed that accused No.1 had produced Ext.P73, the original mark list before him immediately after admission and that it is on the strength of Ext.P71 true copy of Ext.P73, provisional admission was rendered on him. It is also born out by Ext.P78(a) proved through PW46 that accused No.1 had been admitted in that Medical College on 4.8.1979. Thus accused No.1 had obtained admission on the strength of Ext.P73 mark list is proved. We will now consider whether Ext.P73 is a valid document or not. Admittedly by accused No.1, he had passed Pre-degree examination when the result was declared on 11.6.79. He was presented as a candidate from M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to him he obtained the mark list from PW7, Smt. Leela Bhai, a clerk in the M.G College and the original mark list he obtained was shown to his father who, according to him, had advised for applying revaluation. He admittedly made an application for revaluation, Ext.P33. Ext.P33 contain the marks that he had obtained as per the mark list issued to him which he disputes and seeks modification on revaluation. He admittedly made an application for revaluation, Ext.P33. Ext.P33 contain the marks that he had obtained as per the mark list issued to him which he disputes and seeks modification on revaluation. It is deposed by PW40 as well as PW41 that on the strength of the said mark list he had applied for admission to B.Sc (Zoology) course and his application had been duly registered in Ext.P57 register on 28.6.1979 and the relevant entry is Ext.P57(a). Ext.P57 also reveals the total mark that he had shown in the application. That is 459 out of 900. It is further revealed on the strength of Ext.P59 that he had been admitted in that college for first year B.Sc (Zoology) course on 16.7.1979. It is also revealed from PW47 a member of staff of that College and Ext.P60 that he had been issued TC from that college on 31.7.74. He also proved Ext.P89 counter foil kept in the Basalious College to show the issuance of Ext.P60 TC to accused No.1 on 31.7.1979. PW42 also had deposed that the original mark list that had been produced along with the application registered as per Ext.P57(a) had been returned to the candidate. Thus accused No.1 had got back the original mark list issued to him showing a total mark of 459 out of 900, which reveals the mark of 55 out of 150 for Physics. Ext.P10 is the tabulation register duly kept by the University of Kerala in respect of the candidates appeared for pre-degree examination from the M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is an admitted case that the first accused was undergoing matriculation in a school at Koonur in Tamilnadu and had passed 11th standard. On the strength of Ext.P46 order dated 25.4.1975 such students can directly be admitted to second year pre-degree course on the condition that they shall pass the language papers for the first year, in the first year examination during the second year along with the second year papers. Ext.P10 was being handled in the University by PW9. He had deposed that he entered the marks obtained by accused No.1 in Ext.P10. The relevant entries are marked as Ext.P10(a). These were based on the original mark lists Exts.P19 to P25 and P27 to P30. The relevant marks obtained for each of the papers by accused No.1 were marked as Exts.P19(a) to P25(a) and P27(a) to P30(a). He had deposed that he entered the marks obtained by accused No.1 in Ext.P10. The relevant entries are marked as Ext.P10(a). These were based on the original mark lists Exts.P19 to P25 and P27 to P30. The relevant marks obtained for each of the papers by accused No.1 were marked as Exts.P19(a) to P25(a) and P27(a) to P30(a). He had deposed that the marks so entered in Ext.P10(a) did not tally exactly with the marks originally claimed by him as already mentioned above and carried over to Ext.P33 application for revaluation duly endorsed and signed by accused No.1 himself. 7. It has been deposed by PW9 and PW14 that the mark list on the basis of the entries in Ext.P10 are prepared by them. They have also identified a similar mark list so prepared, Ext.P26 issued to PW26 another student who wrote the very same examination from the very same college. They also have been shown Ext.P73 when they were examined and had clearly deposed that the entries therein had no been written by them and the initials contained therein are not of theirs. It is also deposed by PW9 that Ext.P73 is not a mark list issued on revaluation because according to him such a mark list will contain a new date than the date of result namely 11.6.1979. Therefore, Ext.P73 is not a mark list duly issued from the concerned section as it ought to have been. 8. Admittedly, going by Ext.P33, accused No.1 had applied for revaluation. PW11 is the concerned Assistant Registrar of EJ(2) Section wherein the revaluation had been dealt with. PW17 is the attestee who had first attended to Ext.P33 application. He had identified Ext.P33 and deposed that accused No.1 had applied for revaluation of six papers, two papers each of each one of the three optional subjects. He had forwarded to EJ(1) Section handled by PW16 who had to search out the concerned answer papers and arrange for revaluation. PW16 has deposed that after getting revaluation, even though he is secured two marks higher than the original marks for one paper, that was not sufficient enough to reflect any modification as there was no variation to the extent of 10% of the maximum marks and therefore the revaluation did not show any change in the mark originally awarded. Therefore he made necessary communication to EJ(2) section handled by PW11. Therefore he made necessary communication to EJ(2) section handled by PW11. PW11 had further deposed that he had made necessary endorsement regarding no change in Ext.P33 application and also in Ext.P94 revaluation register. The relevant entry is Ext.P94(a). Consequently a memo regarding no change ought to be drawn up. That is Ext.P35, which was sent over to the despatch section handled by PW18. He had deposed that he had despatched Ext.P35 in the address of accused No.1 during his normal course of office proceedings. Ext.P36 is the despatch register and corresponding entry is Ext.P36(a) which revealed that Ext.P35 dated 4.8.1979 had been despatched to accused No.1 on 13.8.79 and that there was no change in the marks obtained by accused No.1 originally. 9. The marks in Ext.P73 are, admittedly by accused No.1, not in conformity with that originally secured. Necessarily, when Ext.P73 is not one duly issued from the University and is not the result of a revaluation we can easily be, based on the aforesaid documents and evidence, find that it is a forged document. It is submitted, justifying the entries in Ext.P73 as genuine, that there may be a possibility of error committed by PW17 while introducing the additional two marks at the time of revaluation. This cannot be because, if at all there was such variation even inadvertently or by mistakenly it would have been carried down to Ext.P10(a) entries and only after appropriate variation or modification, a modified mark list ought to have been issued. Ext.P10(a) entries does not reveal such a variation which remain as such as contained in the original mark list. Therefore, a possibility of such a mistake on the part of PW17 can safely be ruled out. Ext.P73 is conclusively proved as a forged document. The issue is whether he had the knowledge that Ext.P73 was a forged document. According to the defence, that was the mark list handed over to him by his father as obtained on revaluation. It is in evidence through PW9 that whenever a new mark list is furnished to the candidate on revaluation, the original one given to him will be directed to be surrendered. Then alone a new one will be issued. Accused No.1 had no case that, the original mark list that he had obtained, which had been returned to him by PW42 on 31.7.79 had been surrendered in order to obtain Ext.P73. Then alone a new one will be issued. Accused No.1 had no case that, the original mark list that he had obtained, which had been returned to him by PW42 on 31.7.79 had been surrendered in order to obtain Ext.P73. He has also no case that except that the father had given Ext.P73 to his hands, he had obtained any other marks than the original marks in the revaluation said to be done upon Ext.P33. It is in this regard the contention of the Public Prosecutor with regard to the alleged conspiracy has to be considered. According to him accused No.1 had submitted Ext.P64 application on 5.7.1979. At that time the result of his pre degree examination had been declared and he had on that strength already applied for B.Sc decree course in Basalious College as is seen from Ext.P57(a) entry on 28.6.79, making use of the original mark list. So, when Ext.P64 application was made to the Medical College on 5.7.1979 he was aware of obtaining a mark list and he was aware of the marks. But the relevant entries in Ext.P64 he had made a false submission that he was waiting the mark card. It is also discernible from the instruction contained in Ext.P64 application that the necessary description including mark list of the qualifying examination had to be furnished along with Ext.P64. But such entries to furnish such details are also blank and no mark list had been furnished even though it is an essential mark list. It is at that point of time the evidence of PW44 becomes relevant. He is an Associate Professor in Medical College, Devangere closely acquainted to accused No.2, the father of accused No.1. Accused No.2, as spoken to by PW44 was an external examiner for Mysore University and it is because of his acquaintance with the management of the College that Ext.P64 was received on 5.7.1979, though the necessary documents were lacking. So according to the Public Prosecutor certain relevant information were purposefully withheld in Ext.P64. The Public Prosecutor also invites our attention to Exts.P68 and 69 letters written by accused No.1 addressed to the Principal of the college. In Ext.P68 accused No.1 was very categorically undertaking that he would be producing the mark list within another ten days. So according to the Public Prosecutor certain relevant information were purposefully withheld in Ext.P64. The Public Prosecutor also invites our attention to Exts.P68 and 69 letters written by accused No.1 addressed to the Principal of the college. In Ext.P68 accused No.1 was very categorically undertaking that he would be producing the mark list within another ten days. It is further revealed from Ext.P70, a letter addressed by PW57 to the Chairman of the selection committee for selecting candidates to the medical course that all the candidates had furnished a mark list and he had in that letter Ext.P70 requested the chairman to provide Ext.P64 application for admission. Ext.P70 is dated 25.7.79. Ext.P71 is an attested copy of the mark list Ext.P73, which has been attested by none other than PW48, a colleague of accused No.2 in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He had also categorically revealed in the court below that, accused No.2, the father of accused No.1 had given him the original and requested for an attestation. So by that time Ext.P73 had come into existence. It is at that time we have to again come to the evidence of PW42, a clerk of Basalious college who had issued Ext.P60 TC conforming to the counter foil Ext.P89 on 31.7.79, that he had returned the original mark list furnished by accused No.1 for admission in that college only on 31.7.79. That means when PW 48 attested Ext.P71 seeing Ext.P73, the original mark list was available in the Basalious College and had not been returned to the University. This factum is in the knowledge of accused No.1 and none other than accused No.1. Therefore accused No.1 did not have any occasion to contend that Ext.P73 was a lawfully issued mark list on revaluation from the University. It is this marks contained in this mark list that he had voluntary entered in Ext.P67 on 7.8.1979 at Bangalore when he was interviewed for admission. It is also revealed from the endorsement in page 5 of Ext.P64 that accused No.1 had been advised for admission to J.J.M. Medical College by the selection committee on 8.8.1979. Probably it shall be on the basis of this endorsement that PW57 had made the endorsement in the last page in his hands to provisionally admit him in his college subject to approval from Mysore University. This admission was as revealed from Exts.P78 and P78(a), on 14.8.1979. Probably it shall be on the basis of this endorsement that PW57 had made the endorsement in the last page in his hands to provisionally admit him in his college subject to approval from Mysore University. This admission was as revealed from Exts.P78 and P78(a), on 14.8.1979. PW47 had further deposed that it is after this admission that original of Ext.P73 was produced in the college. Thus the admission that he had obtained as aforesaid is using a forged mark list knowing that it was a forged one and to obtain such admission that forged mark list was used as a genuine document, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The only defence that had been taken in 313 statement is that he had been acting according to the mandates from his father. Father had asked him to make an application for revaluation and father had furnished to him Ext.P73 as if a genuine one. In the light of the discussion that we had already made this defence cannot have any more countenance and cannot be accepted. The date of birth entered by accused No.1 in Ext.P64 reveals that he was born on 8.7.1961. He had been in a boarding school in Kunoor, away from his ordinary residence. He had been completed 11 year matriculation in Tamilnadu. He had obtained admission to pre-degree second year course in M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram. He had passed such pre-degree examination with second class and was aspiring for admission to Medical College. In such circumstance it cannot be like that he was so adolescent that he cannot understand the consequences of acting based on Ext.P73 having not returned the original mark list that he had furnished to Basalious College. He had the maturity of that age to understand the consequences. 10. The court below convicted these two appellants. From the evidence available, we are unable to place our fingers on the real evidence available in this case as to who had committed forgery in forming Ext.P73. Involvement of accused No.5 is revealed only through the recovery of Ext.P35 on 17.12.2981 as revealed by Ext.P88 and recovery of Exts.P6 and P7 on 19.12.81, as revealed by Ext.P87. The handwriting contained in Ext.P73 is not proved either through any expert or by any one who has acquaintance with the handwriting of accused No.1 or accused No.5. Involvement of accused No.5 is revealed only through the recovery of Ext.P35 on 17.12.2981 as revealed by Ext.P88 and recovery of Exts.P6 and P7 on 19.12.81, as revealed by Ext.P87. The handwriting contained in Ext.P73 is not proved either through any expert or by any one who has acquaintance with the handwriting of accused No.1 or accused No.5. The statement of the approver CW1, Ext.P96 cannot any more relied on in the light of the ruling of the Full Bench. Thus there is no conclusive proof as to who had really committed the offence of forgery. It is in this regard we have to consider the case set up by the prosecution on the strength of conspiracy. It is now trite including by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in AIR 1999(SC)2640 and AIR 2005 SCW 4148 that the direct evidence of conspiracy is impossible to be adduced because any conspiracy will be done in secrecy. The court can confer more cogent materials about the conspiracy which can also be on the basis of the circumstances proved. In the light of the circumstances already existent with relation to the non-obliging of certain material aspects in Ext.P64 by accused No.1 and in Exts.P68 and P69 about the existence of the mark list already furnished to him from the University, it can easily be deduced that he had been attempting to conceal his marks that he had obtained earlier which was not sufficient to fetch admission in medical college, as he did not secure 50% marks for the optional subjects together. Knowing that Ext.P73 was not a mark list obtained on revaluation or one genuinely issued from the University he had made use of it for the purpose of securing admission in Medical College while the original mark list had been furnished to the Basalious College for the purpose of obtaining admission to degree course there. The sole beneficiary of Ext.P73 is none other than accused No.1. Taking into account his educational status at the relevant point of time and the age he cannot keep ignorance of the consequences of using Ext.P73. Therefore these aspects taken together will reveal that he had been along with his father playing role for the purpose of fabricating Ext.P73. According to him it was at the instance of his father that he had made Ext.P64 application. Ext.P72 is the photocopy of a draft for Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore these aspects taken together will reveal that he had been along with his father playing role for the purpose of fabricating Ext.P73. According to him it was at the instance of his father that he had made Ext.P64 application. Ext.P72 is the photocopy of a draft for Rs.1,25,000/-. The instructions contained in Ext.P64 reveals that, though the original draft be forwarded to the Chairman of the selection committee a copy has to be furnished along with the application to the college concerned. It is that furnished along with the application has been produced as Ext.P72. A person like accused No.1 cannot in 1973 obtain such a fabulous amount for securing admission. It can only be at the instance of his father. Thus his father, even as early as on 5.7.1979, when there was no chance of understanding what would have been the mark obtained on revaluation application, Ext.P33, had dared to submit that much amount to apply for a medical course in such a medical college. This evidenced his role. It is he who had handed over the original of Ext.P73, as deposed by PW48, in order to attest Ext.P71 true copy of Ext.P73. Thus involvement of the father of the first accused, though deceased, in fabricating Ext.P73 is evident. Ext.P73 can be fabricated only by using the service of some one in the high level of the University. Ext.P73, in the printed form, is kept by the University for issuing mark list for pre-degree examination. It was duly so identified by PW9, PW11 and PW14. They have also spoken to that such blank mark list forms are obtained from the university press and balance used are kept in the almirah of PW14. Such a blank form can be obtained only by one having some access to such records. Accused No.5 was an Assistant Registrar at the relevant point of time, in the very same University. He had thus have access and opportunity to secure the blank mark list form. Even though there is evidence from the mouth of approver in Ext.P96 that accused N0.5 had approached him for the purpose of necessary forged seal, we are unable to rely on the same in the light of the Full Bench ruling. Even then recovery of Exts.P6,P7 and P35 from the premises closely used by accused No.5 have some relevance in this regard. Even then recovery of Exts.P6,P7 and P35 from the premises closely used by accused No.5 have some relevance in this regard. Ext.P35 is the memo issued from the University to accused No.1. That was in reply to Ext.P33 application for revaluation. Ext.P35 reveal that there is no change in the marks consequent on such revaluation. This document dated 4.8.79 despatched from the University as seen from Ext.P36(a) on 13.8.1979 is recovered from the residence and possession of accused No.5 on 17.12.81, after more than two years of issuance of Ext.P35. That come in the hands of accused No.5 either by way of accused No.1 or accused No.2 handing over to him or at their instance he collecting it from the University. Therefore, a close link between accused Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and accused No.5 on the other is thus established by reason of this recovery. This is not the only incident. There was another recovery upon search conducted on 19.12.1981. The documents recovered are Exts.P6 and P7. Ext.P6 is nothing but the migration application submitted by accused No.1 to Kerala University through the Principal of M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram for getting migrated to Mysore University to pursue his medical education within the jurisdiction of that University. The relevant date to be furnished in the second page of Ext.P6 are those to be made by the University section verifying the original marks obviously from Ext.P10. That is not done. That is why PW19 who is handling the migration section in the University has deposed that Ext.P6 along with Ext.P7 chalan evidenced remittance fee necessary for such migration certificate is not received in the section. Ext.P38 is the purport register kept in the university. As per the procedure following by him every migration application would have to be entered in Ext.P38 and that Ext.P6 had never been entered in Ext.P38. This reveals that Exts.P6 and P7 were never furnished to the concerned section but it had been designed to go through accused No.5 from whose custody that had been recovered, as is revealed by Ext.P87. Therefore the link between accused Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and accused No.5 on the other hand is again fortified. 11. It is contended on behalf of accused No.5 that the evidence regarding recovery cannot be relied on. It is not a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore the link between accused Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and accused No.5 on the other hand is again fortified. 11. It is contended on behalf of accused No.5 that the evidence regarding recovery cannot be relied on. It is not a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution also does not have a case that it is a recovery effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On the other hand, it is revealed that Ext.P35 was recovered during the investigation of another crime regarding mark scandal, Crime No.87/81 and Exts.P6 and P7 were recovered during the investigation of yet another crime, Crime No.271/81. Even at that time none of the accused had been suspected with reference to the crime in this case. Therefore, there arise no question of any importance being attributed to the search conducted by PW60 or PW62 in the presence of PW59. Even in cross examination no such suggestion had been given on behalf of accused No.5 against PW59 or PWs.60 and 62. Necessarily, these are sufficiently better evidence to prove the involvement of accused No.5 with reference to some favour to be given to accused No.1. That favour is nothing other than Ext.P73 which accused No.1 had made use of for the purpose of getting admission in the Medical College. Thus, these circumstances and materials persuade us to conclude that an interference is possible with regard to an agreement between accused Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and accused No.5 on the other to fabricate Ext.P73 and to use the same as genuine to obtain an admission. We need not examine whether any other person than them had been involved in this case as there is no appeal by the State and we are unable to rely on Ext.P6 statement of the approver. As expounded by Lord Brampton in Queen V. Lathana, if there is one or more persons agree to do something contrary to law or doing something wrong or harmful to another or, in carrying out an object not other wise legal in illegal method, the person so agreed shall said to commit criminal conspiracy. This dictum of the House of Lords far earlier than the enactment of Section 120A IPC in 1913 still hold good on the basis of the definition of criminal conspiracy as contained in the said section. This dictum of the House of Lords far earlier than the enactment of Section 120A IPC in 1913 still hold good on the basis of the definition of criminal conspiracy as contained in the said section. When any court can gather details for inferring an agreement for doing an unlawful act, necessarily criminal conspiracy can be found against the said person, who had so agreed for, in the light of the details discussed above. This agreement can be reasonably gathered ruling out any other possibilities that accused No.1 and his father accused No.2 and accused No.5 had some agreement in order to fabricate Ext.P73 and have thus committed criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC. 12. This conspiracy is not only for the purpose of fabricating Ext.P73, but also for the purpose of making use of Ext.P73 for admission to J.J.M. Medical College, Davangere as a genuine document. Necessarily, this conspiracy was also for the purpose of committing an offence punishable under Section 471 as well. While using Ext.P73 accused No.1 had given false information and as thus committed the offence punishable under Section 420 as well. When there is thus a conspiracy for the purpose of fabricating a document like Ext.P73 they had committed the offence punishable under sections 466 and 468 as well. Necessarily, conviction as regards these appellants have to be confirmed. It is at this point of time the contention from accused No.1 with reference to Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and with reference to Sections 4 and 6 of Probation of Offenders Act have to be considered. 13. It is at this juncture the violation of right to live which embodies the right to speedy trial has to be considered. Going by the date, the offence is said to be committed in the year 1979. FIR was registered on 28.12.1981. The final report was filed on 17.3.89. The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 25.2.1992. The trial commenced on 10.8.1992. The conviction was entered on 11.12.1992. As early as in 1993 this appeal was filed and for some reason or other hearing was prolonged until this stage. Of course there is that much delay in this case. But in a case like this it could not have been detected immediately after commission. The trial commenced on 10.8.1992. The conviction was entered on 11.12.1992. As early as in 1993 this appeal was filed and for some reason or other hearing was prolonged until this stage. Of course there is that much delay in this case. But in a case like this it could not have been detected immediately after commission. Necessarily, as high officers with high hands had been involved the investigation had consumed some time. There was some controversy with regard to the examination of the approver at the time of committal stage. Therefore, the delay until the trial stage was in the circumstances unavoidable. At the appellate stage also, because of the question of law involved, one way or other, it was prolonged. The time taken in this regard cannot be cashed out on the strength of a plea of violation of the right to speedy trial. Even going by the decision in Ramachandra Rao V. State of Karnataka (2002(4) SCC 578) the principles as contained in Antulay's case [Abdul Rehman Antulay V. R.S. Nayak (1992(1) SCC 225] are stated. Merely because of a delay no body can escape from a punishment. Even going by these principles delay can at the best be taken into consideration, while considering the question of sentence. Therefore, merely because of the delay the prosecution case cannot be thrown out finding that there was violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. The other contention centered around Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of Probation of Offenders Act need not be considered in detail as we had already taken a view in our decision in Crl.A.No.597/92 that Section 20 could be applied only to those juvenile who had not attained the age of 18 on 1.4.2001 as explained in para 37(b) by a Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh's case (AIR 2005 SC 2731). 15. The age limit mentioned in Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall be with reference to the date of conviction by the trial court. As on the date of conviction in this case namely 11.12.1991, the accued No.1 had already crossed the age of 31 years. 15. The age limit mentioned in Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall be with reference to the date of conviction by the trial court. As on the date of conviction in this case namely 11.12.1991, the accued No.1 had already crossed the age of 31 years. Necessarily, following the dictum in Ramji Nissar and another V. State of Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 1088) as explained in Daulat Ram V. State of Haryana (AIR 1972 SC 2434) and Crl.A.No.597/92, he will not be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the nature of course and its implication on the society in general, this is not a fit case where the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act also be extended to accused No.1. Therefore those contentions cannot be accepted. 16. As we have already confirmed conviction by the court below, now we have to determine the sentence. As already indicated the delay occurred and the period during which the first accused, an young man faced the trial shall also need reconsideration. He was at the time of commission of offence just cross the age of 18. He had already undergone, during trial, imprisonment for a period of two months and 11 days from 4.1.1982 to 15.3.1982. Therefore, we are of the view that the imprisonment already undergone shall be limited as the substantive sentence for the conviction already entered to document the nature of offence and a message has to Taking into account the nature of offence and a message has to propagate to the society for such kind of offences shall not recur in future there shall be heavy fine. Accordingly, we imposed a fine of Rs.2 lakhs on accused No.1 consequent on the conviction under Section 471 IPC in default of which he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 Months. The 5th accused was an official of University functioning as an Assitant Registerar. He cannot be rendered in light consideration as was done to accused No.1 He cannot be dealt with so lightly. A responsible official had maze use is the official position in fabricating document as if thus issued from his own institution in order enable young student to obtain admission on the strength of ... mark list. Thus taking into account the seats that are due to the eligible and meritorious candidates. A responsible official had maze use is the official position in fabricating document as if thus issued from his own institution in order enable young student to obtain admission on the strength of ... mark list. Thus taking into account the seats that are due to the eligible and meritorious candidates. The court below sentenced him on the aforesaid counts only a rigorous imprisonment for a total term of 2 years only. We feel that there is no reason punishment the nature of the crime committed by him and his position in interference is required his sentence as imposed by the court below is. In the result the conviction of the appellants under Sections 120B, 466, 468, 471 and 420 are confirmed and the sentence with regard to accused No.1 was limited to the trial imprisonment that he had already undergone apart from the fine of Rs.2 lakhs with default sentence as already mentioned So far as accused No.5 is concerned appellant in Crl.A. No.22/93, his appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentenced already ordered by the court below.