JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J.-The instant Govt. Appeal has been filed on 8.6.2001 by the appellant, State through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi against the order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.)-cum-S.D.J.M. Ranchi. The counsel of the appellant Mr. Rajesh Kumar submits that the accused respondent namely M.L. Paul had filed an appeal (Cr. Appeal NO.4 of 2001) against the aforesaid order in the court of 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who after hearing both the parties, by his judgment dated 6.6.2001 dismissed the appeal with certain modification in the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. It is further submitted that the present appellant has also preferred a Cr. Rev. No. 366 of 2001 against the aforesaid judgment dated 6.6.2001 passed by the appellate court. 2. From the record, I find that the appellant has filed this Govt. Appeal on 8.6.2001 against the judgment dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.)-cum-S.D.J.M.-Ranchi. The accused-opposite party preferred a Cr. Appeal NO.4 of 2001 before the 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against the aforesaid judgment and the present appellant has also appeared and contested the said Criminal Appeal and ultimately the said Criminal Appeal was disposed with certain modification in sentence on 6.6.2001. Therefore, it is clear that the present appellant has filed this case after disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2001. As the appellant has also preferred the Cr. Rev. No. 366 of 2001 against the aforesaid judgment dated 6.6.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal NO.4 of 2001 by the 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi before this court, the Govt. Appeal 'has now become in fructuous. Accordingly, the Govt. Appeal is dismissed as in fructuous. Cr. Rev. No. 366 of 2001 3. The petitioner (State through Superintendent of Police C.B.I. Ranchi) has filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 6.6.2001 passed by the 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the appellate court has dismissed the criminal appeal with certain modification in sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-opposite party. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the C.B.1. The petitioner (State through Superintendent of Police C.B.I. Ranchi) has filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 6.6.2001 passed by the 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the appellate court has dismissed the criminal appeal with certain modification in sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-opposite party. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the C.B.1. lodged a F.I.R. against the accused opposite party M.L. Paul alleging therein that on the' receipt of information that M.L. Paul applied for the job of Engineer in C.M.P.D.I.L., Ranchi during the year 1982 and alongwith his application submitted various certificates showing therein that he had passed B.E. (Mech.) from Bengal Engineering College in 1973. On the basis of that certificate and mark sheet he was appointed as Engineer in C.M.P.D.I.L., Ranchi in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted several times. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the Vigilance Department conducted an enquiry and found that he was neither student of Bengal Engineering College nor he has passed B.E. (Mech.) from Calcutta University. On the basis of the said F.I.R., a case was lodged against him by the C.B.I. After investigation the C.B.I. submitted the charge-sheet for the offences under sections 420/467/468/471, of the I.P.C. against him. 5. During the trial on behalf of the C.B.I. ten witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the accused opposite party filed a petition stating therein that for the similar charge of forgery of the certificate, he has already been dismissed from his service by the department and as such he confessed his guilt and prayed for some mercy in the matter of awarding the sentence. The trial court after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he confessed his guilt, convicted and sentenced him for one month R.I. under Section 471 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.2,500/- in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 15 days more. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 420/467 and 468 of I.P.C. but a fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and further Rs. 2,500/for the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. was imposed and in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days separately. No substantive sentence or fine was awarded for the offence under Section 468 of I.P.C. 6. 2,500/- for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and further Rs. 2,500/for the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. was imposed and in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days separately. No substantive sentence or fine was awarded for the offence under Section 468 of I.P.C. 6. The accused opposite pat1y preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court i.e. Cr. Appeal NO.4 of 2001. During the hearing of the said appeal, the counsel appearing for the C.B.I. conceded and admitted that M.L. Paul has already lost his service due to this case. So the appellate court may take lenient view in the matter of awarding sentence. 7. It will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the finding of the appellate court which is as follows:- "From the lower court record I find that the appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. which prescribes sentence of imprisonment and of fine with. He has been convicted under Section 420 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- perused of the lower court record indicates that against the appellant a separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. was also framed where under also the appellant has been convicted and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-. No sentence of imprisonment has been passed against the appellant for the charge under Section 467 of I.P.C. The appellant has been charged under Section 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I for one month and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo R.I for 15 days. Thus, the appellant has been sentenced for imprisonment under Section 471 LP.C. which is ancillary offence and has been sentenced to pay fine only for the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. which is the main offence. 2,500/- in default to undergo R.I for 15 days. Thus, the appellant has been sentenced for imprisonment under Section 471 LP.C. which is ancillary offence and has been sentenced to pay fine only for the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. which is the main offence. So I feel that the order of sentence of imprisonment for one month passed against the appellant for the charge under Section 471 I.P.C. which is a ancillary offence is unreasonable, illegal and excessive one as the appellant has not been sentenced to any imprisonment for the main offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. For the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. also the appellant has not been sentenced to any imprisonment though under Section 420 passing the sentence of imprisonment is imperative for the Magistrate for the charge under Section 468 I.P.C. the appellant has not been sentenced either to any fine or imprisonment. Since this court has got not power to enhance the punishment per provision under Section 386(B)(iii) of the Cr.P.C., the sentence of the appellant to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the charge under Section 420 and also to pay fine for the charge under Section 467 I.P.C. needs no interference. But in view of the fact that the appellant has not been sentenced to any imprisonment either for the offence under Sections 467, 468 or 420 I.P.C., the sentence to undergo R.I for one month under Section 471 I.P.C. imposed against the appellant appears to be illegal, unreasonable, excessive one and needs interference by this court. Apart from this from the allegation against the appellant I feel that no charge under Section 471 read with Section 467 IP.C. ought to have been framed against the appellant rather the charge for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. should have been framed against the appellant. The allegation against the appellant is that he has used the forged certificate as genuine one for getting employment. In a decision reported in 1980 Criminal Law Journal 1312 (Supreme Court) it has been held by the Apex Court that for using a forged certificate as genuine one for the purpose of admission, charge for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. should be framed and no charge for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467 LP.C. should be framed. So, the learned Magistrate ought to have framed charged and ought to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. as said above Section 471 LP.C. does not prescribe a separate punishment rather under Section 471 LP.C. the same punishment shall be given which is prescribed for forging such document. Educational certificate cannot be said to be a valuable security. So against the appellant charge for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. should have been framed and the appellant should have been convicted for the charge under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. and should not have been charged and convicted for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467 LP.C. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 471 read with Section 467 LP.C. is hereby altered to his conviction under Section 471 read with Section 465 LP.C. Section 465 I.P.C. says that whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. So under Section 465 LP.C. the Magistrate has been empowered to pass sentence of fine only. In the present case as admitted by the Special P.P. also the appellant has already lost his service which he got on the basis of using forged certificate as genuine one. So the appellant has already been punished for the wrong or the offence committed by him. Hence, it was not imperative or essential for the learned Special Magistrate to pass the sentence of imprisonment against the appellant for the charge under Section 471 I.P.C. particularly when the learned Magistrate did not pass the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. which prescribe sentence of imprisonment and of fine both. Apart from this the learned Special Magistrate should have considered that the appellant has voluntarily confessed his guilt stating that for the similar charge he has already dismissed. Per decision reported in Criminal Law Journal 1980 page 1312 (Supreme Court) a convict of offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 I.P.C. may be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate should have taken into consideration that for five years the appellant faced trial causing much physical as well as mental torture and financial expenditure. Per decision reported in Criminal Law Journal 1980 page 1312 (Supreme Court) a convict of offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 I.P.C. may be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate should have taken into consideration that for five years the appellant faced trial causing much physical as well as mental torture and financial expenditure. Considering the above facts I feel that in the interest of justice the sentence to undergo R.I. for one month for the conviction of the accused for the charge under Section 471 is hereby set aside but the sentence to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days for the charge under Section 471 !.P.C. against the appellant is hereby confirmed. The sentence of the appellant for the charge under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. needs no interference. On the basis of the discussions made above I am of the view that there is no merit in this criminal appeal. As such this criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence of imprisonment as indicated above." 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate court has not considered the provision of the Section 375 Clause-B of the Cr.P.C. and it should not have set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the trial court under Section 471 of the I.P.C. It is further contended that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the sentence under Section 471 read with Section 467 LP.C. The appellate court has totally erred in converting the same under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the LP.C. when at the - time of pleading guilty before the trial court accused opposite party had not raised any objection to the aforesaid charge. 9: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Sr. 9: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Sr. Counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that the appellate court exercising power under Section 386 Cr.P.C. modified the charge holding that Educational Certificate cannot be said to be a valuable security relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1980 Cr.P.C. page 1312(SC), Bhausaheb Kalu Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "...We do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts and Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as valuable security as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code..." 10. Mr. Sinha appearing for the accused opposite party has further contended that the accused opposite party has already been dismissed from his service on 8.11.1995 and the case is now more than 14 years old. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999(5) SCC pg. 732, State of Karnataka vs. Muddappa in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "...We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation." 11. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and also keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above and also on overall consideration of the matter, I do not find any infirmity and illegality to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this revision application is also dismissed. The accused-opposite party, namely, M.I. Paul who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.