JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri S.S. Yadav for the revisionist and Sri H.C. Pandey, A.G.A. for the respondent. 2. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1997 and judgment and order dated 5.3.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli in criminal Case No. 791 of 1993, convicting the revisionist under sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year under section 420 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 468 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 471 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine the accused was further sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that Jagdish Singh Kandari, Janaki Prasad, Sri Krishna Semwal Dr. Ramesh Dutt Dobhal, Prabhat Kumar Pandey and Aswini Kumar gave an application to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, stating therein that the accused has submitted false certificate of experience and have obtained appointment on the post of Teacher. An inquiry in the matter was made by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, who submitted his report Ex. ka-7 on record. On the order of Deputy Director of Education, F.I.R. was lodged against the accused, which is Ex. ka-9 on the record. The case was investigated by S.I. Omveer Singh, who visited Shivaji Intermediate College, Sahsaun, Allahabad. Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal of the College denied to have issued any experience certificate to the accused. He issued another certificate dated 3.3.93 (Ex. ka-8) to the Investigating Officer in which he denied that the accused ever worked as a teacher in his college or he issued any certificate to him. 4. Charges under sections 420, 471 and 468 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. He denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. 5. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Yogeshwar Prasad, Principal, Govt. Inter College, Mansuna, District Chamoli, P.W. 2 Pratap Singh, District Inspector of Schools, P.W. 3 Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal, Shivaji Inter College, Sahsaun, Allahabad, and P.W. 4 Constable Balbir Singh, P.S. Chamoli. 6. He denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. 5. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Yogeshwar Prasad, Principal, Govt. Inter College, Mansuna, District Chamoli, P.W. 2 Pratap Singh, District Inspector of Schools, P.W. 3 Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal, Shivaji Inter College, Sahsaun, Allahabad, and P.W. 4 Constable Balbir Singh, P.S. Chamoli. 6. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and has stated that Principal Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav wanted illegal gratification from him but when he declined to do so, he falsely deposed against him (accused). 7. The trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence, held the accused guilty under section 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 8. Accused the judgment and order dated 5.3.1997, accused has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, who dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2001. Aggrieved by the orders passed by two courts below, the accused has preferred the present revision. 9. Counsel for the accused revisionist has submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the statement of Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal, Shivaji Intermediate College, Sahsaun, Allahabad, who alleged to have issued experience certificate, paper no. 3-ka/33 to accused Balbant Singh but later on declined to have issued any such certificate and issued another certificate Ex. ka-8, in which he denied to have issued any experience certificate to the accused. The accused has levelled allegation against Sri Gulab Singh Yadav for demanding illegal gratification, therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have obtained expert opinion regarding the signature of Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav on the alleged certificate. The alleged certificate dated 2.6.1986 has also been counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad but the prosecution has not adduced any evidence that the signature and seal of the D.I.O.S. Allahabad is also fictitious and forged. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the accused revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. and have examined the documents on record. 11. A perusal of the alleged forged certificate paper no. 3-ka/33 on record shows that the certificate is typed on letter head of Shivaji Intermediate College, Sahsaun, Allahabad and the seal of the Principal of College has also been affixed there. The certificate has been signed by Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav. 11. A perusal of the alleged forged certificate paper no. 3-ka/33 on record shows that the certificate is typed on letter head of Shivaji Intermediate College, Sahsaun, Allahabad and the seal of the Principal of College has also been affixed there. The certificate has been signed by Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav. The certificate has also been countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools Allahabad. No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that the counter signatures of the District Inspector of Schols is also fictitious. Below the seal of the Principal of Shivaji Intermediate College and District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad some official has put his initial with date but the Investigating Officer has not inquired about those officials. The Counter signature is made by the higher officer on such certificate after verification of genuineness of such documents. It was necessary for the prosecution to verify also the signature of D.I.O.S. on the certificate but neither the Investigating Officer took any pain to inquire about the genuineness of the signature of D.I.O.S. has any evidence has been adduced that the signatures of D.I.O.S. on the certificate was also forged and fictitious. 12. In this case the evidence of Investigating Officer was necessary to prove the prosecution case but either of the two Investigating Officers namely S.I. M.R. Kuril and S.I. Omveer Singh has not been examined in the case. 13. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegation of demanding illegal gratification against Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav. He has stated as under : izk;% fo|ky;ksa esa ;g gksrk gS fd 200@& 400@& nsdj dke djkrs gSa eq>s 400@& 500@& nsrs Fks 18-8-82 ls 30-5-86 rd dke dj eSaus NksM+ fn;kA esjs NksM+us ls ukjkt gks x;s fQj cqyk;k fd fey yks] dgk fd ;gk¡ ds cnkSyr rks gq, gks dqN gesa Hkh ns nksA vc ukSdjh ij yx gh x;s gksaxsA xqykc izlkn izèkkukpk;Z ls ckr gqbZ FkhA eSaus dgk bruh de ru[kkg gS cPps ikyuk Hkh eqf”dy gS vkidks dgk¡ ls nw¡A mUgksaus dgk Bhd gS tkvks iNrkvksxsA fQj ekeyk my> x;kA 14. Thus the case of the accused is that he filed genuine certificate but as he could not give gratification to Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal after he got Government service, Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav has become furious to him and declined the certificate issued by him. Thus the case of the accused is that he filed genuine certificate but as he could not give gratification to Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav, Principal after he got Government service, Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav has become furious to him and declined the certificate issued by him. P.W. 3 Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav has admitted in his cross examination that although the record of temporary and permanent teachers is being maintained by the college but he has not come with record. This witness has stated in his examination-in chief that Investigating Officer has inquired from him. He obtained a paper in writing from him which is Ex. ka-8. It is surprising that when the record of temporary and permanent teachers were available in the college, as to why that record was not inspected and taken in his custody by the Investigating Officer rather that he obtianed another certificate from the same person to counter the certificate produced by the accused. 15. Counsel for the accused revisionist has further submitted that there was no motive for the accused to file forged experience certificate, as it was not essential for a candidate to have experience of teaching and the advertisement published in the news paper shows that only master degree in the concerned subject was an esential qualification for the post of lecturer. Thus no benefit was to be accrued to the accused by filing forged experience certificate. As he had worked as temporary teacher in Shivaji Intermediate College, Allahabad and certificate to this effect was issued to him in a routine manner. While applying for the post of lecturer, he filed the said certificate along with his other certificates. The prosecution has not come up with the case that the accused was beneficiary of such a fictitious and forged certificate and he was given extra marks due to such experience certificate during the selection process. Thus there was no motive on the part of the accused to file forged document and he was not likely to be benefited by means of such a fictitious document. 16. In view of above, the prosecution case becomes doubtful against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the counter signatures on the alleged forged certificate was also not genuine. 16. In view of above, the prosecution case becomes doubtful against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the counter signatures on the alleged forged certificate was also not genuine. Further the person who made the counter signature on the certificate was neither interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor he was examined to deny his signature on the certificate, no expert opinion has been obtained for comparing the signatures of P.W. 3 Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav on the alleged forged certificate in view of the charge of illegal gratification levelled against him by the accused against Sri Gulab Prasad Yadav. Further the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officers of the case and non production of the record of teachers of Shivaji Intermediate, College, Allahabad makes the case of the prosecution improbable against the accused. 17. As will appear from the aforesaid that the accused was not likely to get any benefit from such a forged document during selection process of lecturers, thus absnece of motive for counterfeiting fictitious document on the part of accused, makes the prosecution case highly doubtful in order to convict the appellant under sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 18. Both the Courts below have failed to examine the aforesaid important aspects of the case. All the above circumstances make the prosecution case highly doubtful and thus the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 19. Thus there are sufficient grounds for interference with the findings arrived at by the trial court as well as the appellate court in the revision. The accused revisionist is entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted. 20. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Judgement and order dated 28.5.2001 and 5.3.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, respectively are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. 21. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.