Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 65 (KAR)

N. K. Narsimhappa v. State of Karnataka

2011-01-14

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2011
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARYANA, J.—In this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. P.C, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the concurrent judgment of the Courts below wherein he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: On 31.3.1999, the petitioner-accused pursuant to the notification calling for application to the post of Primary School Teacher in the State of Karnataka, applied for the said post by forging a document to show as if he studied SSLC in Burudugunte High School falling within rural category though he had studied in Mahatma Gandhi High School in Chintamani by altering the school code number and also the seal of the School in the SSLC Marks Card and on that basis, he obtained appointment as Primary School Teacher under rural category. Later on, the complaint received from public in respect of the illegalities committed by various applicants, enquiry was held and the SSLC certificates produced by the candidates were verified with the original records in the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and found that the petitioner accused had not studied in Burudugunte High School at any point of time and that he had studied in Mahatma Gandhi High School, Chintamani. Immediately P.W. 1-Munishamappa, Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Kolar filed complaint as per Ex. P1(a) in respect of 12 candidates based on which the case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. After investigation, different charge sheets came to be filed against those 12 persons named in the original complaint. The case against this petitioner was registered as C.C. No. 166/2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Kolar. 3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined P.Ws. The case against this petitioner was registered as C.C. No. 166/2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Kolar. 3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17 and got marked Exs. P1 to P22. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and after assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, by the judgment and order dated 10.4.2008 held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted for those charges. After hearing the accused, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as noted supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in. Crl. A. No. 29/08. 4. The other similarly convicted accused persons in different cases emanating from the original complaint also filed appeals before the learned Sessions Judge. All those appeals including the appeal filed by the present petitioner were heard together and were disposed of by common judgment dated 3.10.2009 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, by dismissing all the appeals and affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. It is against these two concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the petitioner has presented this petition. 5. I have heard Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records secured from the Courts below. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have failed to note that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the petitioner as the person who applied for the post and as person who produced the document, said to have been forged and, therefore, the judgment of the Courts below are perverse and illegal as such, they are liable to be set aside and for that purpose, the revision petition requires to be admitted for fresh consideration of the materials on record. 7. 7. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the records and read the judgment of the Courts below. Perusal of the records indicate that the petitioner-accused has not seriously disputed the fact that he applied for the post of Primary School Teacher pursuant to the notification as per Ex. P1. While applying to the post, necessary supportive documents have also been produced. From the evidence on record, it is noticed that initially, the petitioner did not seek appointment under rural quota. However, on publication of the provisional selection list, in which the name of the petitioner did not find place, the petitioner sought for appointment under rural quota and to support the said claim he also produced necessary documents to show that he had studied up to SSLC in rural area. Based on such documents, the authorities selected the petitioner to the post of Primary School Teacher under rural quota and issued him the appointment order as per Ex. P3. Ex. P6 is the application filed by the petitioner on 9.6.1999 seeking appointment under rural quota, Ex. P4 is the certificate issued by the School Head Master Government Higher Primary School, Peramachanahalli, Chintamani Taluk to the effect that the petitioner studied from 5th to 7th standard in the said school during 1985 to 1988. Ex. P5 is the certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, Mangala Halli, Chintamani Taluk to the effect that the petitioner studied from 1st to 4th standard between 1981-1982 to 1984-1985. Ex. P2 is the original SSLC certificate in respect of the petitioner dated 21.5.1991. According to the prosecution, the petitioner claimed to have studied High School in Burudugunte Rural High School, and on that basis he had studied up to 10th standard in the rural area, as such, he is entitled for reservation under the rural quota. 8. The Head Master of Mahatma Gandhi Government Boys High School, Chintamani has been examined as P.W. 12 who in his evidence has stated that the accused studied High School from 8th to 10th standard in the said school and in this regard he has issued a certificate as per Exs. P16 and P17. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not choose to cross-examine this witness. P16 and P17. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not choose to cross-examine this witness. From the evidence of P.W. 12, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner studied in Mahatma Gandhi Government Boys High School, Chintamani from 8th to 10th standard. 9. P.W. 14-Muniyappa, is the retired Head Master of Burudugunte Rural High School between 1992 to 2004. According to the evidence of this witness, the petitioner-accused did not study in the said High School at any point of time nor he has issued any rural education certificate. According to him, to this effect he has written a letter Ex. P20. Even this witness has not been cross-examined by the accused. Thus from this, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner did not study in Burudugunte Rural High School. 10. In Ex. P2-SSLC certificate even to the naked eye there appears to be some manipulation in the code number of the school and also the name of the institution in which the petitioner studied. The oral and documentary evidence on record would clearly establish that the petitioner, who had not studied High School in rural area and studied in Mahatma Gandhi Government Boys High School at Chintamani, with a view to get an appointment under rural quota, produced Ex. P2 by tampering the said document to show as if he studied in a high school situated in rural area and by producing forged and fabricated document he even succeeded in getting an appointment. No doubt some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile. However, the fact that they have turned hostile has not in any way, affect the case of the prosecution to any extent. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 12 and 14 coupled with the above referred documentary evidence are sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner-accused for the charges levelled against him. Both the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record have recorded a finding that the accused is guilty of charges levelled against him. This Court sitting in revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C. cannot reappreciate the evidence on record and record a different finding. This Court in exercise of revision power under Section 397 Cr. Both the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record have recorded a finding that the accused is guilty of charges levelled against him. This Court sitting in revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C. cannot reappreciate the evidence on record and record a different finding. This Court in exercise of revision power under Section 397 Cr. P.C. can interfere with the judgment of acquittal only if it is established that the judgment of the Courts below is erroneous and contrary to law as such the Courts below have committed error of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no error of law committed by the Courts below in convicting the petitioner-accused for the charges levelled against him, Therefore, I find no ground to admit this petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at least the petitioner be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. I find no ground to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to an offender of this nature. Here is a person who with a view to get public appointment, produced forged and fabricated documents and thereby cheated the Government and also denied the said job to the deserving and eligible candidate. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The sentencing policy is that the accused found guilty should be adequately punished so that it could be an eye opener to other potential offenders so that similar offences are not committed by any other potential offenders. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.