JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- Out of the two accused prosecuted in this case under Sections 468, 471, 120-B IPC, vide judgment dated 25.9.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, accused Jassa Singh was acquitted, whereas accused Dalbir Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 471 IPC. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide judgment dated 9.9.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to eighteen months. 2. The case relates to forgery of a letter, on the basis of which the accused was promoted as Constable from Special Police Officer. 3. The accused Dalbir Singh was working as SPO in district Fatehgarh Sahib whereas Constable Jassa Singh (being acquitted) was posted in the Training Branch, CPO, Punjab, Chandigarh. During the course of his posting as SPO, he procured bogus letter bearing No.2355/CON dated 23.5.1995 purported to have been issued by H.S. Randhawa, IPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Training), Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. On 26.5.1995, the said letter ultimately reached the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib. The letter indicated the sanction to promote the accused-petitioner (herein referred as ‘the accused’) as Constable. Consequently, he was allotted Constable No.400/FGS. Later on, H.S. Randhawa, IPS, during the course of scrutiny, of the papers found that the aforesaid letter was not issued by him and was fabricated by the accused, he directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib to investigate the matter. During the course of investigation, it came out that the letter was typed by Jassa Singh at the instance of Dalbir Singh and the latter forged the signatures of H.S. Randhawa, IPS. Thereafter, he gave a bogus dispatch number. Investigating Officer after comparing the standard signatures of the accused with the signatures on the aforesaid letter from Forensic Science Laboratory, reached the conclusion that the accused had forged the signatures of H.S. Randhawa. As such, Jassa Singh as well as the accused were challaned and charged under Sections 468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. PW-1 Davinder Singh Clerk, Establishment Branch, CPO, Chandigarh has stated that his duty was to maintain the dispatch register. He proved the entry Ex.PA. As such, Jassa Singh as well as the accused were challaned and charged under Sections 468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. PW-1 Davinder Singh Clerk, Establishment Branch, CPO, Chandigarh has stated that his duty was to maintain the dispatch register. He proved the entry Ex.PA. According to him the dispatch No.2355/CON dated 23.5.1995 does not exist in his register. 5. PW-2 CII Lachhman Singh Naib Reader Office of SP (operation) Fatehgarh Sahib had identified the signatures of Gurdeep Singh on the FIR Ex.PW2/A registered against the accused. PW-3 Iqbal Singh Sahota, Assistant Inspector General of Police has proved the letter No.24034-43/OASI dated 7.7.1995. 6. PW-4 HC Surjit Singh was posted as dispatch clerk at the relevant time and stated that the letter No.2355 was not dispatched from their office. PW-5 Kuljeet Singh Assistant Clerk who had received the disputed letter No.2355 and marked the receipt No.7606/A dated 26.5.1995 stated that this letter was ultimately sent for verification to the Sub Inspector. 7. PW-6 H.S. Randhawa while appearing in the witness box reiterated the prosecution version and stated that the letter No.2355 dated 23.5.1995 does not bear his signatures. 8. PW-7 Karam Singh Senior Assistant has produced the police file of C. Dalbir Singh. PW-8 C. Sohan Singh had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PF to provide a link in the chain of prosecution evidence. PW-9 Jatinder Singh has stated that on receipt of the disputed letter he handed over the same to the dealing Clerk. PW-10 Inspector Bharpoor Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. 9. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. 10. The trial court ultimately acquitted the accused Jassa Singh while disbelieving his complicity in the commission of the crime, however, it convicted the accused Dalbir Singh. His appeal also failed. 11. Arguments heard. Record perused. 12. There is no denying a fact that the accused was posted as SPO and later on, on the basis of the letter NO.2355 dated 23.5.1995, he got the substantive benefit and became constable. It is also not disputed that the letter was allegedly signed by H.S. Randhawa, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh on behalf of the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that the letter was allegedly signed by H.S. Randhawa, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh on behalf of the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. Needless to say that during the enquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the letter was found to be forged. The evidence has come on record that on the basis of the said letter extending sanction under Punjab Police Rule 12.15 (1) for enlisting Dalbir Singh SPO as Constable by constituting Special Recruitment Board. The Board was duly constituted consisting of Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Gurdeep Singh and Inspector Dilbagh Singh Police Lines, Fatehgarh Sahib. Accordingly, they recommended the accused as Constable vide order dated 7.7.1995. There is no denying a fact that Dalbir Singh was enrolled as Constable No.400/FGS. H.S. Randhawa while appearing in the witness box as PW-6 has not owned his signatures. The accused also refused to give his signatures before the court for comparison. However, the accused also did not examine any expert in order to prove that the letter Ex.PA was actually issued by H.S. Randhawa, Assistant Inspector General of Police for Director General of Police for according sanction to constitute the board. 13. Under these circumstances and as per evidence led by the prosecution as a whole it could definitely be said that the accused being beneficiary under the letter himself forged the signatures or he had full knowledge about the same but it is a fact that he used this forged document as genuine one and he was fully aware that the competent authority did not extend any relaxation to him with regard to height by one inch. He was also aware that no recruitment was going on for enlisting the constables at the relevant time, but he dishonestly and fraudulently got procured the letter Ex.PA to achieve his illegal designs. The necessary ingredients for the commission of offence under Section 471 IPC, viz: the accused should have fraudulent and dishonest intention and while doing so, he uses a forged document knowing fully well that the same is not genuine, stand established. 14. The necessary ingredients for the commission of offence under Section 471 IPC, viz: the accused should have fraudulent and dishonest intention and while doing so, he uses a forged document knowing fully well that the same is not genuine, stand established. 14. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the trial court, this court observe that both the courts below rightly reached the conclusion that the accused while knowing that the document sought to be used by him is not a genuine document, used the same while believing it to be forged one, drew benefit out of that. 15. Under these circumstances, from the facts and evidence on record, no second opinion, which may be favourable to the accused, could be expressed. 16. While coming to quantum of sentence, it was held in case A.S. Krishnan v. State of Karnataka, 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.) 312 (SC) that such type of criminals deserve deterrent punishment in the larger interest of public, as such, the plea of the accused for extending benefit of probation is not allowed. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. 18. Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. -----------------