Judgment :- This Revision has been preferred by the accused against the judgment in C.M.A.No.185 of 2002 on the file of the additional Sessions Judge (FTC.No.I), Salem. The accused has been charged under Section 471, 468 and 420 IPC. .2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- .The accused was working as a record clerk in Revenue Department on compassionate ground. Even after the completion of the service of seven years she could not get her promotion. For getting promotion as Junior Assistant the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules is a pass in SSLC. The accused had produced a SSLC certificate No.AA 1140214 with Registration No.395475, claiming that she had passed SSLC in the month of October 1992. When the said mark list was sent to the Director of the Government Schools Examination, Chennai, it was found that the said mark list submitted by the accused was not a genuine one. On the basis of the said SSLC certificate the accused got promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and she was working as Junior Assistant from 14. 1999 to 31.08.1999. Hence, the accused was charged under Section 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 3. The said case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, as C.C.No.90 of 2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate has furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and when the charges were framed under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked. .4. P.W.1-Jeyaraman is the Personal Assistant to the District Collector. He would depose that the accused Ramayee was working as a Junior Assistant in the Government Service and that she was appointed as record clerk on compassionate ground on 13. 1991 after the death of her husband. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of record clerk is fail in SSLC. The accused had joined as a record clerk by producing SSLC fail certificate. As per the G.O. if a record clerk has put in seven years of service with SSLC pass qualification, then the said record clerk will be entitled for the promotion as a Junior Assistant. On 13. The accused had joined as a record clerk by producing SSLC fail certificate. As per the G.O. if a record clerk has put in seven years of service with SSLC pass qualification, then the said record clerk will be entitled for the promotion as a Junior Assistant. On 13. 1998 the accused has produced an SSLC pass certificate and claimed that since she has put seven years of service with necessary qualification, she may be promoted as junior assistant by presenting an application before the District Collector, Salem, and in the SSLC mark list it is stated that she has secured 203 marks out of 500 and that on the basis of her qualifying certificate and educational qualification, she was promoted as a junior assistant on 14. 1999 and that in January, 1993, the genuineness of the educational certificate produced by the junior assistant was ordered to be scrutinized and accordingly the SSLC certificate produced by the accused was also sent to the Director of School Education, Chennai, and that it was later found out that the SSLC certificate produced by the accused was a bogus one and that the accused had secured only 23 marks out of 500. So on the basis of the report received from the Director of School Education, the District Collector has suspended the accused on 38. 1999 and also recommended for criminal action against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaint preferred by the District Manager (Public) to the Commissioner of Police, Salem. 5. P.W.2 is the then Sheresdor of the District Collector. He has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. He would admit that Ex.P.1-complaint was preferred by him as per the directions of the District Collector. Ex.P.2 is the mark list filed by the accused. Ex.P.3 is the letter received from the Director of Government Examination, Chennai. Ex.P.4 is the order dated 13. 1991 appointing the accused as a record clerk. Ex.P.5 is the application presented by the accused seeking promotion. Ex.P.6 is another application dated 13. 1998 by the accused seeking promotion. Ex.P.7 is the order of promotion by the District Collector. Ex.P.8 is the transfer order given to the accused. 6. P.W.3 is the then A4 clerk of the Collectorate, Salem. Ex.P.9 is the letter from the Government directing the District Collector to verify the certificate produced by the record clerks and Office Assistants. 1998 by the accused seeking promotion. Ex.P.7 is the order of promotion by the District Collector. Ex.P.8 is the transfer order given to the accused. 6. P.W.3 is the then A4 clerk of the Collectorate, Salem. Ex.P.9 is the letter from the Government directing the District Collector to verify the certificate produced by the record clerks and Office Assistants. P.W.3 would depose that the mark list furnished by the accused is a bogus one and a complaint was preferred by the Collector through P.W.2. 7. P.W.4 is the then record clerk of Collectorate, Salem. He would depose that he does not know whether the accused has passed SSLC. 8. P.W.5 would say that he does not know anything about the accused and has also not given any evidence against the accused. 9. P.W.6 is the then Regional Deputy Director of the Directorate of Government Examination, Chennai. He would depose that SSLC mark list of the accused was referred to his office for verification that he has verified the said certificate and found that the certificate No.395475 of the year 1992 submitted by the accused is a bogus one and to that effect a letter was addressed to the District Collector, Salem, enclosing SSLC certificate No.395475 relating to the accused stating that it is a bogus one. 10. P.W.7 would depose that he had handed over the records relating to the accused maintained in the District Collectorate, Salem, to the Investigation Officer. 11. P.W.8 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Salem Town, at the relevant point of time, who had received the complaint and registered the same under Cr.No.2 of 2002 under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Ex.P.10 is the FIR. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody on 1. 2000. After completing the investigation, P.W.8 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 2. 2000 under the above said provisions of law. 12. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has denied her complicity with the crime. 2000. After completing the investigation, P.W.8 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 2. 2000 under the above said provisions of law. 12. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has denied her complicity with the crime. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before the trial Court, the learned trial judge has held that an offence under Section 420 IPC has been attracted against the accused and accordingly convicted the accused under section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and a fine of Rs.2,500/-with default sentence. The learned trial judge has acquitted the accused in respect of the offence under Section 471 and 468 IPC. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused has preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in C.M.A.No.185 of 2002. After due deliberations and after hearing both side and after scanning the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conviction, but modified the sentence to that of 25 days in stead of one year, but sustained the fine. Against the said findings of the first appellate Court, this revision has been preferred by the accused. 13. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether an offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out against the accused or the revision is liable to be allowed for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision? 14. The Point:- Admittedly the accused was working as a record clerk in Salem Collectorate and that she was appointed on compassionate ground as a record clerk on the death of her husband. As per the prescribed rules, for a promotion from the post of record clerk to the post of junior assistant the minimum qualification prescribed is a pass in SSLC. At the time of joining as a record clerk the accused had only the qualification of SSLC fail which is the minimum prescribed qualification for appointment of a record clerk. The accused after putting seven years of service as a record clerk had filed an application before the District Collector stating that she had passed SSLC examination in October 1992 and her SSLC registration No. is 395475. The accused after putting seven years of service as a record clerk had filed an application before the District Collector stating that she had passed SSLC examination in October 1992 and her SSLC registration No. is 395475. Ex.P.2 is the mark list produced by the accused showing that she has secured 203 marks out of 500. The certificate produced by the record clerks and assistants were sent for scrutinizing of its genuineness and accordingly Ex.P.2, mark sheet of the accused, was also sent to the Director of School Examination. It is in evidence through P.W.6 that Ex.P.2 mark list submitted by the accused is not a genuine one and does not relate to the accused. The Courts below have concurrently held that the charges under Section 471 and 468 IPC against the accused were not proved but the charge under Section 420 IPC against the accused has been proved. Section 420 IPC runs as follows:- "Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." So to warrant conviction under Section 420 IPC there must be a dishonest inducement by a person so as to deceive the other to deliver any property. In this case Ex.P.2-mark list has been produced, according to the prosecution, by the accused before the District Collector to get promotion from the post of record clerk to that of a junior assistant for which the minimum prescribed educational qualification is a pass in SSLC. Admittedly while joining as a record clerk the accused has only qualification of SSLC fail. It is the case of the prosecution that Ex.P.2-mark list was produced only by the accused along with her application to the District Collector for promotion under Ex.P.5. During 313 question the accused would say that Ex.P.2-mark list does not belong to her. So the burden is heavily on the accused to show that Ex.P.2 was not produced by her. It is the case of the prosecution that Ex.P.2-mark list was produced only by the accused along with her application to the District Collector for promotion under Ex.P.5. During 313 question the accused would say that Ex.P.2-mark list does not belong to her. So the burden is heavily on the accused to show that Ex.P.2 was not produced by her. But there was no rebuttal evidence on the side of the accused to show that Ex.P.2 was not produced by her but by someone else. Under such circumstances, the inference is to be drawn is that only to get promotion from the post of record clerk to a higher post of junior assistant and to show that she is having the minimum qualification of SSLC pass the accused has produced Ex.P.2 along with her requisition letter Ex.P.5. Under such circumstances, the ingredient stated under Section 420 IPC has been made out against the accused to warrant conviction under Section 420 IPC. The learned first appellate Court considering the plight of the accused has on humanitarian ground has reduced the sentence from one year to 25 days and thereby granted set off and confirmed the fine imposed. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned first appellate judge in C.M.A.No.185 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.No.I, Salem, which is neither illegal nor infirm. Point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the criminal revision petition fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order passed in C.M.A.No.185 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC.No.I), Salem.