JUDGMENT:- These appeals are directed against appellants conviction for various offences and sentences imposed upon them for those offences by the learned 2nd Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No.358 of 2002. 2. In the year 1999, a scandal of bogus degrees. mark-sheets and unwarranted increase of marks in revaluation at various examinations conducted by the Nagpur University surfaced. The University authorities reported the matter to police, whereupon various crimes including Crime No.346 of 1993 were registered on 24-3-1999 on the complaint of Shri. Prakash Mistry, original accused No.2. Eventually, in Crime No.348 of 1999, Shri. Prakash Mistry was himself arrested by the police. Investigation into the crimes was conducted by P.I. Sayyad and after him by PSI AniL Lokhande. Originally one charge-sheet was filed bearing Regular Criminal Case No.387 of 1999 and after separate trials were ordered, separate supplementary charge-sheets for various offences came to be filed against various offenders. 3. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellants are as under: Appellant Shailesh Tupkari in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2007, who was accused No.1 before the Trial Court, was a student, who had appeared at Part II of BE Examination in Winter 1995. He failed in some of the subjects at the said examination. The Nagpur University permitted revaluation of answer books in terms of Ordinance No.159 at the instance of such failed candidates. Therefore, accused No.1 Shailesh Tupkari applied for revaluation of his papers of Network Theory (N/T) and Electronic Devices and Circuits (EC) by paying requisite fees. 4. Procedure for conduct of examinations is prescribed in Ordinance No.9 issued by the Nagpur University. It provides, among other things, from clause 57 onwards, for appointment of tabulators, scrutineers, etc., and their respective roles. This ordinance did not provide for revaluation, which facility was introduced by Ordinance No.159. Ordinance No.159 providing for revaluation merely gives sketchy procedure about revaluation. It does not lay down the procedure to be followed internally by the University administration. Therefore, it may be taken that the provisions of Ordinance No.9 would apply mutatis mutandis to revaluation as well. 5. The practice, which was followed by the University officials for such revaluation has been deposed to by PW 1 Narayan Ghatole, an employee of the University in the Revaluation Section. Therefore, it may be taken that the provisions of Ordinance No.9 would apply mutatis mutandis to revaluation as well. 5. The practice, which was followed by the University officials for such revaluation has been deposed to by PW 1 Narayan Ghatole, an employee of the University in the Revaluation Section. According to him, after a candidate applied for revaluation after paying the prescribed fee, an entry used to be taken in the Revaluation Tabulation Register (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTR' for the sake or brevity). The RTR contains the following columns : I) Sr. No. II) Case No. III) Date and amount IV) Roll No./Code No. V) Name VI) Subject paper VII) Maximum marks examiner in revaluation VIII) Original Marks IX) Marks of 1st examiner in revaluation X) Marks of 2nd examiner in revaluation XI) Average marks in both XII) Result/change or no change XIII) % increase or decrease XIV) Signature of scrutineer XV) Remarks The Clerks in the Revaluation Section used to fill up column nos.(I) to (IV) and (VI) to (VIII) on the basis of the material which they already had. Requisition for relevant answer books used to be sent to the godown. After the answer books were received, the portion of the answer book containing roll number of the candidate and marks obtained by him in the original valuation used to be masked. A code number used to be printed on the answer book by using a numbering machine. 6. The answer books of students in the Engineering faculty used to be taken by a special messenger to the examiners appointed for the purpose of revaluation. Normally, the answer book used to be taken to a College in another University, where the Principal or the Head of the Department in the College concerned, used to assign the task of revaluation to the examiners in the said College or University. They were not supposed to write the marks on the answer sheets itself. These examiners were provided with 'revaluation sheets'. These revaluation sheets contained columns of code number and marks assigned to each answer, with a column of total at the end. The revaluation sheet also provided for recording the subject of the question paper and its date. The revaluation sheet was to be signed by the revaluator. These examiners were provided with 'revaluation sheets'. These revaluation sheets contained columns of code number and marks assigned to each answer, with a column of total at the end. The revaluation sheet also provided for recording the subject of the question paper and its date. The revaluation sheet was to be signed by the revaluator. One revaluation sheet ordinarily contained 9 to 10 rows so that information in respect of9 to 10 answer sheets revalued would be filled in. Since the examiners, who revalued the papers, had no access to the roll number, they would mention the code number and then fill up the marks allotted by them for each answer. Since the revaluation of each answer book used to be done by two revaluators, there used to be two such revaluation sheets (for the sake of easy reference, they would be hereinafter referred to as 'R1' and 'R2' sheets corresponding to revaluation done by the first and the second revaluator). The messenger, who took the papers for revaluation, used to bring back the answer books along with revaluation sheets to the University. 7. After receipt of answer books and revaluation sheets in the Revaluation Section of the University, the University employees used to de-mask the roll number on the answer sheet and used to fill up column no. (V) in the RTR by recording the relevant code number against the name of the student, his roll number and subject of the paper sent for revaluation. 8. After this was done by the University employees, the RTR along with RI and R2 sheets used to be handed over to scrutineers. The scrutineers were select Professors of affiliated Colleges, who were assigned the task of entering marks obtained upon revaluation. The scrutineers used to work in pairs. Two Professors would be working as a team for entering marks in respect of one or more students. Column nos.(IX) and (X) for marks assigned by the two examiners used to be filled in by the scrutineers. They then calculated average marks and filled them up in column no. (XI). In column no. (XII), the scrutineers would mention whether there was a change or no change or an adverse change. In column no. (XIII), they were supposed to mention the percentage of increase or decrease and were expected to sign the entry in column No.(XIV). They then calculated average marks and filled them up in column no. (XI). In column no. (XII), the scrutineers would mention whether there was a change or no change or an adverse change. In column no. (XIII), they were supposed to mention the percentage of increase or decrease and were expected to sign the entry in column No.(XIV). If there was a change of 5% or more over the original marks then the result of the candidate would change. 9. It is not in dispute that there is no authentic document to describe this procedure or to discern as to what was the standard procedure to be followed. However, according to Shri. Ghatole, after the RTR was filled up, a notification was expected to be issued about change in the result upon revaluation. After this notification, necessary changes were made in the Final Tabulation Register (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the FTR'). The FTR in respect of an examination conducted by the University used to be drawn up after evaluation of answer books at the examination was over, and the result used to be declared on the basis of the FTR. The FTR is in the form of a computer printout, since the record was computerised. Thereafter the students used to apply for revaluation. After revaluation, change, if any, in the marks used to be noted in hand in the FTR by the same set of scrutineers. 10. Accused No.3 Madhukar Smarth and accused No.4 Suresh Manmode (who died before charge was framed) were the pairs of scrutineers, who were entrusted with the task of entering marks of accused No.1 Shailesh Tupkary in the RTR as well as the FTR. Accused NO.2 Prakash Mistry was the Controller of Examinations, Incharge of all examinations at the relevant time. 11. In this case, Shailesh Tupkary, accused No.1, had initially secured 17 and 28 marks out of 80 respectively in the subjects of N/T and EDC. He applied for revaluation. Examiner-I for the subject of N/T had assigned him 18 marks and Examiner-II had assigned 17 marks, thus average of marks came to 18. These marks were entered as 23 and 24 with average as 24 in Column No.(XI) of the RTR. In the FTR, the marks obtained in theory were shown as 24 marks in sessionals as 17 and the total was changed to 41. The candidate thus passed. 12. These marks were entered as 23 and 24 with average as 24 in Column No.(XI) of the RTR. In the FTR, the marks obtained in theory were shown as 24 marks in sessionals as 17 and the total was changed to 41. The candidate thus passed. 12. In the subject of EDC, the marks obtained by the student upon revaluation were 33 and 29. They were entered in the RTR as 33 and 30, with average shown as 32 and thus change being more than 5%, original 28 marks were changed to 32. In the FIR, after adding 9 marks in sessionals, the candidate was shown to have passed with 41 marks. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 Shailesh Tupkary approached accused No.2 Prakash Mistry in order to get his marks changed and accused Nos.3 and 4 changed the marks in order to favour accused No.1 by engaging in conspiracy. It was further alleged that accused No.1 Shailesh Tupkary used the said falsely prepared mark-list for getting admission to higher class, i.e. BE IIIrd Year. It was, therefore, alleged that accused No.1 had committed offence punishable under Section 420 and Sections 468 and 471 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code accused Nos.2 to 4 had committed offences punishable under Sections 409. 420. 468 and 471 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code. 14. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer secured the necessary record from the University, recorded statements of witnesses, had the disputed and admitted handwriting sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents, State cm, Pune, and after getting an opinion from the said Expert, and finding that the accused persons Were involved in the aforementioned offences, charge-sheeted them. 15. The learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, charged the appellants, as also the original accused No.2 Prakash Mistry of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code. He also charged accused No.3 Madhukar Smarth of offences punishable under Section 409 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code. As already recounted, accused No.4 Suresh Manmode had already expired. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and hence were put on trial, at which the prosecution examined in all six witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. As already recounted, accused No.4 Suresh Manmode had already expired. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and hence were put on trial, at which the prosecution examined in all six witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. They are: PW 1 Narayan Ghatole was serving as Senior Grade Clerk in the Revaluation Section from the year 1995: PW 2 Prof Jain, PW 3 Prof Grover, PW 4 Prof Shrivastav, who had revalued the papers; PV' 5 Bhalchandra Biradar, the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, who had examined the questioned documents in these cases; and PW 6 PSI Anil Lokhande, the Investigating Officer. 16. Appellant Shailesh Tupkary had admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had applied for revaluation of his N/T and EDC papers in which he had initially scroed 28 and 17 marks respectively. Appellant Madhukar Smarth had denied that entries in respect of marks obtained by accused Shailesh Tupkary in the R TR and FIR Were in his handwriting. He admitted that his specimen writing was taken but denied that any document pertaining to this caSe was sent to the Expert. 17. After considering the evidence tendered before him, the learned 2nd Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur held that the charges against accused No.2 Prakash Mistry were not proved and acquitted him. The State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal. He held accused No.3 Shailesh Tupkary and accused No.3 Madhukar Smarth guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under: (a) For offence punishable under Section 420 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, or in default RI for two months. (b) For offence punishable under Section 468 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.15,000/- each, or in default RI for two months. (c) For offence punishable under Section 471 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, or in default RI for one month. (c) For offence punishable under Section 471 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, or in default RI for one month. (d) For offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- each or in default RI for 15 days each. (e) In addition, accused No.3 was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, or in default RI for three mot1lhs for offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate directed that sentences shall run consecutively. He also directed confiscation of mark-sheets of accused No.1. 18. I have heard Shri. Rohit Deo, learned counsel for appellant Shailesh Tupkary, Ms. Sangeeta Gaikee, learned counsel for appellant Madhukar Smarth, and Shri. S. S. Doifode. learned APP for the State. With the help of all the learned counsel, I have gone through the record. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that merely because appellant Shailesh Tupkary applied for revaluation and was declared to have cleared two subjects at revaluation, it does not follow that he had indulged in any malpractice. 20. Though a discrepancy in marks allotted by the two Revaluators in respect of Question Nos.9 and 10 in the paper of EOC had been brought to the fore by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of Revaluators PWs 2 to 4 at length. This is so because, even if it is accepted that the marks mentioned in the RI and R2 sheets. Exhibits 40 to 44, are correct and do not tally with those entered in the RTR, unless authorship of the entry in the RTR is proved. complicity of appellant Madhukar Smarth cannot be inferred. 21. The prosecution relied on evidence of PW 1 Narayan Ghatole to prove that the entry is in the handwriting of accused Madhukar Smmth. PW I Narayan Ghatole does not state that the entry was made by Madhukar Smarth in his presence. He merely states that the entry was in the handwriting of Madhukar Smarth on the basis of his familiarity with the handwriting of Madhukar Smarth. Therefore, his comparison, or for that matter comparison by the Court, would be amateurish. When services of an Expert were available. He merely states that the entry was in the handwriting of Madhukar Smarth on the basis of his familiarity with the handwriting of Madhukar Smarth. Therefore, his comparison, or for that matter comparison by the Court, would be amateurish. When services of an Expert were available. examination of the disputed writing by Expert PW 5 Bhalchandra Biradar was imperative. Yet for no reason, Investigating Officer PSI Lokhande did not cause the relevant entry to be sent for expert examination, as admitted by him in para 22 of his deposition at Exhibit 96. When the disputed entry was not referred to Expert, though his services were available, an adverse inference ought to follow. It would not be open to rely on the word of PW 1 Narayan Ghatole to hold that entry was in the handwriting of appellant Madhukar Smarth. Curiously. in Criminal Case No.380 of 2002, in which too question was of handwriting of appellant Madhukar Smarth. the Investigating Officer had not sent the questioned writing for Expert's opinion. It is only to be hoped that it was a mere coincidence and not a design. It is also not clear as to how the prosecutor in charge of the case missed this point even after PW 5 Bhalchandra Biradar. the Examiner of Questioned Documents, was mindlessly examined in this case to prove nothing. Therefore. it has to be held that the disputed increase in marks of appellant Shailesh Tupkaty was not engineered by appellant Madhukar Smarth. 22. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (2004)3 SCC 654 , the learned API' submitted that these lapses need not help the offenders. The Supreme Court had observed in that case that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in administration of justice. While there can be no doubt that Courts must be concerned with maintaining public faith in administration of justice, the dangers in reading too much in omissions of the prosecution too cannot be overlooked. 23. While there can be no doubt that Courts must be concerned with maintaining public faith in administration of justice, the dangers in reading too much in omissions of the prosecution too cannot be overlooked. 23. The learned APP submitted that it would be too far fetched to imagine that the Scrutineers would increase the marks of Shailesh Tupkary for no apparent reason, or without being approached by Shailesh Tupkary or merely because he took a fancy for the name. However, in this case the entry of marks in RTR is not proved to have been in the handwriting of Scrutineer, by omitting to send the questioned writing to Expert for opinion. and thus a hiatus is created between favourable entry and the favoured student. 24. It is true that public confidence in administration of justice is shaken when lapses in investigation result in failure of prosecution. However, in our anxiety to ensure that public confidence in administration of justice is not shaken, if we go on overlooking lapses in investigation, what results is slapping the Court with charge-sheets like the present one mechanically filed. An erosion in efficiency of investigating has set in which has brought the situation to this pass when neither investigator nor prosecutor would check up whether the case is fit for putting the accused to trial. It seems that in this case in order to quieten the public outcry about scandal of increase in marks, the administration came up with a charge-sheet in every case where an increase in marks was noticed without bothering to check up as to how that increase could be attributed to criminal acts of persons concerned and how the prosecution aimed to prove such acts. This knee jerk response to public outcry, leading to filing of number of charge-sheets, effecting number of arrests, and mindless investigation without bothering to check up the premises on which the accusations are made, results, borrowing Shakespeare's word, in making a scarecrow of law on which birds of prey merrily perch. 25. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. The convictions of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471. 120-B and 409 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Penal Code and sentences imposed upon them are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of those offences. Order directing confiscation of appellant Shailesh Tupkary's mark-sheets/degree is set aside. Appeals allowed.