I.A. Ansari, J.;- By judgment and order, dated 18.8.2009, passed, in GR Case No. 1600/2005, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, the present petitioner stood con­victed under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and he was sentenced, for his conviction under Section 468 IPC, to suffer rigorous impris­onment for six months and also pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month and he was also sentenced, for his conviction under Section 471 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in de­fault of payment of fine, undergo rigorous im­prisonment for a further period of one month. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Crimi­nal Appeal No.22/2009. By judgment and order, dated 20.09.2011, the learned Ses­sions Judge, Nagaon, on having concurred with the findings of guilt reached by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused has filed this revi­sion. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus: On 12.09.2005, Bhogeswar Bora, Principal of Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, lodged an FIR with Batadrava Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the present accused-petitioner was admitted, provisionally, into BA Part-I in his college, for the academic session 2005-2006, and, on verification of the documents, submitted for the purpose of admission, it was found that the accused had placed a forged pass certificate of HSSLC examination and, upon enquiry, it had come to the light that the certificate, bearing Roll 0521 No.274, which the accused had used as his pass certificate, was actually of one Shamima Akhtar and though the accused was asked to submit rel­evant original documents for the purpose of onward transmission to the University, the accused did not produce the same and re­mained absent from the college thereafter. Based on this FIR, Batadrava Police Station Case No.85/2005 under Sections 468/47 1 IPC (corresponding to GR Case No. 16007 2005) was registered. During investigation, the certificate and the mark-sheet, which the accused had allegedly used for the purpose of obtaining admission into BA Part-I, in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, were seized and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 468/471 IPC. 3. During investigation, the certificate and the mark-sheet, which the accused had allegedly used for the purpose of obtaining admission into BA Part-I, in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, were seized and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 468/471 IPC. 3. During trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. 4. In all, prosecution examined seven wit­nesses in support of their case. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied that he had com­mitted the offences alleged to have been com­mitted by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, how­ever, adduced by the defence. The learned trial Court, having found the accused guilty of the offences charged with, convicted him ac­cordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. As the findings of guilt and the sentences passed having been upheld by the learned appellate Court, the accused has, now, filed this revision. 5. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel, for the accused- petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Pros­ecutor, Assam. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the present case, the attendance regis­ter had not been seized and produced and, in such circumstances, when the accused had denied that he had taken admission in BA Part-I in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, the prosecution's case cannot be taken to have been proved and, therefore, the conviction of the accused is wholly un­founded, illegal and may be set aside. 7. Resisting the revision, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is adequate evidence on record con­vincingly proving that the accused had used forged documents to obtain admission in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, and, in the face of the convincing and creditworthy evi­dence on record, the findings of guilt, reached against the accused, cannot be said to be bad in law and the revision is wholly without merit 8. Let me, now, come to the evidence on record. 9. It is the evidence of PW1, Principal of Batadrava Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava,, which is pivotal in nature, and is, therefore, necessary to be carefully examined. Let me, now, come to the evidence on record. 9. It is the evidence of PW1, Principal of Batadrava Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava,, which is pivotal in nature, and is, therefore, necessary to be carefully examined. According to the evidence of this witness, on 12.09.2005, he was functioning as Principal of the said college and, for the academic ses­sion 2005-2006, accused Mijanur Ahmed had filled up his form for admission into B A Part-I and along with his form, accused also gave documents and, on the basis of the documents, so submitted by the accused, the accused was given provisional admission in the college in the TDC (First year). 10. It is in the evidence of PW1 that for registration with the University, when he ex­amined the documents submitted by the ac­cused, he developed suspicion about the genuineness of the pass certificate, which the accused had submitted, and though he (P W1) looked for the accused, the accused was not traceable. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that as the HSSLC certificate of the accused had been issued by the Principal, Katahguri Junior College, he wrote to the said Principal requesting him to give the pass certificate of the accused and, in response to the letter so issued by him, he received Material Ext. A from the Principal, Katahguri Junior College. PW1 has proved Ext. A1 as the signature of the Principal, Katahguri Junior College, mak­ing it clear that he is acquainted with the hand­writing of the Principal, Katahguri Junior Col­lege. It is further in the evidence of PW1 that by the said letter, the Principal, Katahguri Jun­ior College, conveyed that the pass certifi­cate, in question, belonged to one Shamima Akhtar, who had passed HSSLC examina­tion, in second division, from Katahguri Jun­ior College. On receiving the letter of the Prin­cipal, Katahguri Junior College, indicating that the pass certificate, which the accused had used, for the purpose of obtaining admission in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, was in respect ol Shamima Akhtar and not of the accused, FIR (Ext.1) was lodged by him (PW1) with the police. 11. Though cross-examined by the de­fence, nothing was really elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. The ma­terial aspects of the evidence of PW1, thus, remained unshaken. 11. Though cross-examined by the de­fence, nothing was really elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. The ma­terial aspects of the evidence of PW1, thus, remained unshaken. Though it has been pointed out, on behalf of the petitioner be­fore this Court, that the attendance register has not been brought and proved in the present case, it was not, to my mind, impera­tive to prove the attendance register, when the evidence given by PW1 has, otherwise, remained unshaken. 12. Coming to the evidence of PW2, who is a teacher of Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, what is noticeable is that accord­ing to this witness too, accused was a student of their college, namely, Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, inasmuch as the accused had taken admission in the TDC (First Year) and that at the time of sending to the Univer­sity for registration, when they checked the document, they developed some suspicion and they accordingly asked for the original document to be produced by the accused but the accused could not be contacted and that their Principal (PW1), then, wrote a letter to the Principal, Katahguri Junior College, and, in response thereto, Principal, Katahguri Jun­ior College, informed PW1 that accused had not passed HSSLC examination and that it was a female candidate, who had passed the HSSLC examination. This witness too has proved the Material Ext. A as the letter of the Principal, Katahguri Junior College. The ma­terial aspects of this witness's evidence too remained unshaken. 13. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW3, who is the Principal of Katahguri Junior College, has deposed that the accused was a student of his college and the accused told him (PW3) that he wanted to take admission in Sri Sri Sankardev Col­lege, Batadrava. It is also in the evidence of P W3 that he received a letter enquiring from him if the certificate, given by PW3 for the purpose of obtaining admission, was forged and he gave his reply by Material Ext. 1, which, admittedly, shows that PW3 had written therein that the Roll Number, which had been used by the accused, was Roll 0521 No.274, which was not of the accused, but of another female candidate, who had passed the HSSLC examination in second division. 1, which, admittedly, shows that PW3 had written therein that the Roll Number, which had been used by the accused, was Roll 0521 No.274, which was not of the accused, but of another female candidate, who had passed the HSSLC examination in second division. I do not find that the evidence, given by PW3, has, in any manner, weaken the evidence of P W1 or PW2; rather, the evidence of PW3 sup­ports and strengthens the evidence of PW1 andPW2. 14. As far as PW4, who is UDA of Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, is concerned, his evidence is to the effect that they devel­oped suspicion with regard to the genuine­ness of the document, which had been sub­mitted by the accused. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW5, who is LDA in Katahguri Junior College, I notice that according to his evidence, the accused was a student of their college and he had ap­peared in the HSSLC examination, 2005, but the accused did not pass. From the evidence of PW5, it becomes clear that the accused was a person, who had not passed HSSLC examination in 2005. Consequently, he could not have taken admission, in the first year of TDC, in Sri Sri Sankardev College. 16. Thus, the evidence on record convinc­ingly proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused had taken admission in Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, by using forged mark-sheet and pass certificate inas­much as he had shown to have passed HSSLC examination under Roll 0521 No.274, which roll number really belonged to a female candidate, who had passed her HSSLC examination, in second division, from Katahguri Junior College and when Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, started mak­ing enquiry about the genuineness of the pass certificate, which the accused-appellant had introduced, the accused-appellant disap­peared. In such circumstances, the findings of guilt, reached against the accused by the learned trial Court under Sections 468 and 471IPC, cannot be said to be faulty or not sustainable inasmuch as the accused-appel­lant, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, can be safely held to have forged the documents, based on which he had ob­tained admission in Sri Sri Sankardev Col­lege, Batadrava, and he had committed such forgery for the purpose of cheating inasmuch as he had dishonestly induced Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, to give him admission in the TDC (First) Year, which Sri Sri Sankardev College, Batadrava, would not have done, but for the fraudulent inducement, which the accused-appellant applied. This apart, the accused used forged documents knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged. The accused, thus, committed not only offence under Section 468IPC, but also under Section 471 IPC. The learned appellate Court committed no error in con­curring with the findings of guilt so reached by the learned trial Court, particularly, when it is not the case of the accused-appellant that he had been falsely implicated in the case, because of enmity or with any ulterior mo­tive. 17. As far as the sentences passed against the accused-appellant are concerned, the same also, in the facts and attending circum­stances of the present case, cannot be said to be excessive, harsh and unreasonable. The sentences too, therefore, do not deserve any interfernce in revision. 18. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision. The revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.