1. Being aggrieved of the acquittal earned by both the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as `accused) vide impugned Judgment dated 08-04-2011 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar for the charges punishable under sections 420/468/471/109 RPC, the State has preferred the instant acquittal appeal inter alia on the grounds carved out in the memo of appeal which are further reiterated by Mr. Khan, learned AAG at the Bar. 2. It needs to be mentioned here that there was a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal which stands condoned vide order dated 12-09-2012. The present appeal, as such, is at admission stage. Trial Court record is also available to the Court. 3. Mr. Qureshi appears for respondent No.1 only. Despite service, respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear. She is daughter of respondent No.1. Mr. Qureshi states that he has no instructions to appear on her behalf. The service is, thus, complete. 4. Heard Mr. Khan learned AAG and Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at length and with the assistance rendered by them, gone through the impugned Judgment minutely. Material evidence relevant to the case has also been read over from the trial Court record. 5. Mr. Khan submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the case of the prosecution in its right perspective as both the accused were charged for a very serious offence of forgery, inasmuch, Zanida Bano obtained admission in PUC in Government Higher Secondary School, Amira Kadal by producing a fake marks certificate bearing No. 50599 purportedly of Annual Sessions November-December, 1997 and the other accused abetted the commission of the offence. He then submits that, in order to prove the charge, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses which includes Joint Secretary, BOSE Kashmir, who deposed that marks card of accused Zahida Bano was referred by Principal Government Higher Secondary, Amirakadal for verification and it was found fake. The report sent by the aforesaid witness to the Principal of aforesaid School was duly proved. 6. The report sent by the aforesaid witness to the Principal of aforesaid School was duly proved. 6. Learned State counsel then submits that Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Amirakadal, when stepped into the witness box also, deposed that accused Zahida Bano had taken admission in PUC during May 2000 and when she qualified annual examination, her achievement card along with Matriculation Certificate was forwarded to BOSE, Kashmir for verification and she received report from BOSE that Marks certificate was fake, as such, she lodged a report with Crime Branch, Kashmir. 7. Mr. Khan further submits that may be certain discrepancies have crept in with regard to the identity of the accused on account of certain lapses in the investigation carried out in another FIR No. 33/1998 registered at Police Station Lalpora lodged by one Mohammad Assadullah Bhat son of Abdul Khaliq Bhat alleging therein that his sister Ishrat Bano had appeared in the matriculation examination in November-December 1997 as private candidate vide Roll No. 5504549, but ultimately on the same Roll Number, one Zanida Bano was shown to have qualified, but the said defect does not make the case of the prosecution week so far as accusation against the accused is concerned which is duly proved from the statement of PW Salma Firdous. Principal Government Higher Secondary School. Amarkadal and PW Nazir Ahmad Shah. Joint Secretary BOSE Kashmir. He thus, prays that the appeal at hand requires re-appreciation of entire evidence once again so as to arrive at the just conclusion of the case. 8. Per cotra, Mr. Qureshi supporting the impugned Judgment of acquittal, submits that the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in its right perspective and thereafter, recorded a categoric finding against the prosecution. He then submits that the offence under section 468/471, being technical offences, are to be proved to the hilt and any lacuna left by the prosecution can be said to be a good ground for acquittal. He further submits that even otherwise, accused Mohd Subhan Naikoo cannot be even remotely connected with the commission of alleged offence with the aid of section 109 RPC as there appears to be no evidence on record to that effect. 9. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. Qureshi submits that, there appears to be no perversity in the impugned Judgment which would call for indulgence of this Court. 9. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. Qureshi submits that, there appears to be no perversity in the impugned Judgment which would call for indulgence of this Court. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the State appeal. 10. Graver the offence, greater the proof required. No-doubt, on the face of it, the offence appears to be of serious nature, but what requires to be appreciated in this case is, whether the prosecution has been able to connect the present two accused with the commission of alleged offence or not, keeping in mind that they have already earned acquittal through a full dressed trial. 11. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, one Zanida obtained admission in PUC in Government Higher Secondary School, Amirakadal by producing a fake marks certificate bearing No. 50599 purportedly of Annual Sessions November-December 1997 and accused Mohd Subhan Naikoo abetted the commission of said offence. The said certificate was forwarded to BOSE, Kashmir after the declaration of results of Annual examination of PUC which was found to be fake one. On this, a letter was addressed to Crime Branch, Kashmir by the order of Principal of aforesaid school for registration of the case, as such FIR No. 54/2001 came to be registered in which both the accused were booked for the aforesaid offences. 12. May be Mr. Khan learned AAG has laid his entire stress on the evidence of PW Salma Firdous and PW Nazir Ahmad Shah, but I cannot skip the evidence of other witnesses produced by the prosecution, reference thereto is already there in the impugned Judgment. 13. So far as PW Salma Firdous, Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Amarkadal is concerned, in her cross examination, she stated that accused Zahida Bano had taken admission before her posting and her documents were checked by the concerned clerk. She further stated that she had no personal knowledge as to who has prepared the fake certificate and she had only instructed to the concerned clerk for handing over the record to the police after she had attested the photo copy of the record. In short, this witness is virtually a witness to the record. 14. She further stated that she had no personal knowledge as to who has prepared the fake certificate and she had only instructed to the concerned clerk for handing over the record to the police after she had attested the photo copy of the record. In short, this witness is virtually a witness to the record. 14. PW Nazir Ahmad Shah, Joint Secretary, ROSE, Kashmir when stepped into the witness box, in his cross examination stated that he had obtained the report from the Verification Section and he did not mention about the letter for verification received from Board. He also stated that, there was no mention as to whom Roll No.50599 of 1997 was allotted during the year 1997. 15. PW Abdul Majeed Bhat is also an employee of Government Higher Secondary School Amirakadal who had handed over the documents to the police on the asking of Principal of the aforesaid school. 16. Prosecution also examined one PW Muzaffar Ahmad Mir who was also posted at BOSE Office Kupwara and stated that the police of Crime Branch came to his office in connection with the investigation of the present case relating to marks card and he identified the same. He further stated that the marks card in question was not signed by the Officer concerned. In his cross examination, this witness stated that some personnel of the Crime Branch through letter had asked about the genuineness of the marks card and the Officer concerned had replied that letter, whereas he was not aware of the particulars of any candidate with respect to whom the investigation was being conducted. This witness however stated that the name of the applicant, whose photograph was affixed on the form, was Zahida Bano and it was signed and sealed by Head Master. 17. PW Ghulam Rasool ASI is the Investigating Officer of the present case, who has proved certain seizure memos with regard to the recovery of the aforesaid letter, photograph and the application of one Zahida Bano. He also talks of the seizure memo with regard to the admission form of Zahida Bano with respect to PUC and TDC and an affidavit of accused Mohd Subhan and Certificate bearing No.S-96-39197. 18. He also talks of the seizure memo with regard to the admission form of Zahida Bano with respect to PUC and TDC and an affidavit of accused Mohd Subhan and Certificate bearing No.S-96-39197. 18. What is noticed by the learned trial Court from the evidence adduced by the prosecution is that, although it is established that the matriculation card produced by the accused Zahida Bano was fake, however, the identity of the accused is not established by any of the witnesses as none of them has deposed before the Court that the accused facing the trial was actually the same person. Not only that, the original certificate submitted by the accused which eventually became the basis of registration of the present case has also not been placed on record by the prosecution. 19. Another flaw noticed by the trial Court is that the application form handed over to and seized by the Investigating Officer are not only unsigned and unattested, but also material columns therein are unfilled, inasmuch as admission form of PUC has only been left unfilled with respect to the year of passing of the matriculation. 20. The matter does not rest here. There is another application form of one Zanida Bano a different girl, on record, whose parentage is also recorded as Mohammad Subhan, which is signed by the applicant and attested and sealed by Head Master who by appearance as revealed from the photograph is altogether a different girl who also claimed to have qualified the matriculation examination during the year 1997 under same Roll No.550549 which is attributed to the accused. Not only that, the original marks card produced by the accused has not been placed on record by the Investigating Agency, instead duplicate marks card has been placed on record which as per the application form was issued on the application of one Zanida Bano, though it contains the name of accused. 21. All the aforesaid weaknesses have been noted by the learned trial Court while appreciating the case of the prosecution deeply. 22. With regard to the investigation carried out in this case, learned trial Court has noticed a very vital flaw relating to FIR No. 33/1998, which fact is also admitted by Mr. Khan, learned AAG during the course of his arguments. 22. With regard to the investigation carried out in this case, learned trial Court has noticed a very vital flaw relating to FIR No. 33/1998, which fact is also admitted by Mr. Khan, learned AAG during the course of his arguments. The observations made by the trial Court in this regard needs to be reproduced and it reads: "The Investigating Officer has further placed on record the Photostat copies of the FIR No. 33/98 registered at Police Station, Lalpora lodged by one Mohammad Assadullah Bhat S/o Ab. Khaliq Bhat R/o Lalpora Kupwara alleging therein that his sister Ishrat Bano had appeared in the matriculation examination in Nov-Dec 1997 as private candidate vide Roll No. 5504549, however when the results were declared they were stunned to find that one Zanida Bano was shown to have qualified under Roll No.5504549. He has also placed on record the Photostat copies of the material collected therein including photocopies of the relevant page of the paper containing the result and also photocopies of the attendance sheet. However, investigating agency has maintained stupendous silence about the result of the investigation in that FIR which was prior in time. Nor it is the case that investigation in that case was also taken over by the Crime Branch. If Zahida and Zanida were the names of one and the same girl, then there could not have been two separate investigations and consequent charge sheets, as that would amount to double jeopardy. The original marks card used by the accused for taking admission in the school has not been placed on record, whereas the duplicate placed on record was issued to another girl Zanida Bano who is not accused in this case. These facts give rise to the inference that accused has been brought before the Court as substitute of the real girl who has been shielded for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, whether accused was the actual girl who had obtained and made use of the fake marks certificate." 23. From the aforesaid weaknesses crept in the prosecution case, it can be comfortably said that Zahida Bano and Zanida Bano were apparently two girls as per the photographs on record, yet, the investigating agency remained silent about this aspect and did not make any endeavor to look for other girl or at least clarify its stand in this regard. From the aforesaid weaknesses crept in the prosecution case, it can be comfortably said that Zahida Bano and Zanida Bano were apparently two girls as per the photographs on record, yet, the investigating agency remained silent about this aspect and did not make any endeavor to look for other girl or at least clarify its stand in this regard. Not only that, another FIR No. 33/98, which was registered against the same accused, but prior in time, was neither investigated by the Crime Branch, nor it was closed, despite the fact that, both FIRs were with regard to the same occurrence. 24. Appreciating all the aforesaid flaws in the prosecution case, learned trial Court has observed that, an attempt has been made to camouflage the facts by burying the truth by the Investigating Agency, which would be enough to give rise to a reasonable doubt about the involvement of the accused, as such acquitted both the accused. 25. Scope of interference in an order of acquittal is very limited. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, no-doubt the Court can review the entire evidence, but would interfere only, if there are compelling and substantial reasons. It is also well settled that generally the order of acquittal should not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. Paramount consideration of the Court is to prevent miscarriage of justice. In a case, where the admissible evidence is ignored, the duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, where the accused has been acquitted, for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused really committed any offence or not. The settled principle to be followed by the Appellate Court, considering the appeal against Judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. Undoubtedly, if the impugned Judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process of appreciating the prosecution case, it can be said to be a compelling reason for showing indulgence. 26. Mr. Khan, learned AAG, has admitted that no material evidence has been left by the learned trial Court untouched while appreciating the prosecution case, otherwise it could be said to be a ground for showing indulgence by this Court. 27. 26. Mr. Khan, learned AAG, has admitted that no material evidence has been left by the learned trial Court untouched while appreciating the prosecution case, otherwise it could be said to be a ground for showing indulgence by this Court. 27. After rescanning the entire prosecution case on the basis of the evidence available on trial Court record, within the settled parameters as referred to hereinabove, there appears to be no reason much less compelling and substantial reason for disturbing the well reasoned impugned Judgment of acquittal based on appreciation of entire evidence in its right perspective. 28. That being the fact situation, I am not inclined to take a different view from the one already taken by the learned trial Court. 29. Resultantly, the appeal at hand is dismissed at admission stage itself.