JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 2. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal no. 37(3) of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala by his judgment and order dated 09.07.2013 delivered in PRC 420 of 2008 convicted the petitioner under Sections 468/471 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment under Section 468 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC with further direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C in the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Criminal Appeal 37(3) of 2013. By the impugned judgment, the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has reversed the finding of the conviction under Section 468 of the IPC but affirmed the conviction under Section 471 of the IPC and maintained the sentence of the trial court for committing the offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC i.e. the petitioner shall suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case is rooted in the ejahar filed by one Tapas Deb, Assistant Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles, RK Nagar, Tripura on 24.05.2008. In the said written ejahar (Exhibit-8), it was disclosed that the petitioner was appointed as Rifleman in the 2nd battalion on 27.07.1992. At the time of his appointment he submitted one transfer certificate bearing serial no. 023646 dated 30.12.1991 of Tulamura High School stating that he had passed the class VIII examination. On verification, the Assistant Head Master, Tulamura High School vide his letter No. F.1(6-2)/HM/2004-06/828 dated 11.01.2008 intimated that the transfer certificate as submitted by the petitioner was not issued from their school. Thus, the educational qualification certificate as submitted by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment appeared to be false. Based on the said ejahar, Bodhjungnagar Police Station case no. 10 of 2008 under Sections 468/471 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. 5. Thus, the educational qualification certificate as submitted by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment appeared to be false. Based on the said ejahar, Bodhjungnagar Police Station case no. 10 of 2008 under Sections 468/471 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. 5. Having completed the investigation, the final police report charge sheeting the petitioner was submitted. On taking cognizance the charge under Section 468 and 471 of the IPC was framed. After recording evidence and on examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala returned the finding of conviction under Section 468/471 of the IPC and passed the sentence, as stated above. Thereafter, in appeal the conviction of the petitioner under Section 468 of the IPC was interfered with. However, conviction under Section 471 was maintained by the appellate court. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 6. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the charge under Section 468 of the IPC has fallen through and when there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had knowing fully well utilized any forged document inasmuch as, the forging of the document has not been proved by the prosecution, the conviction under Section 471 of the IPC cannot stand the test of law. 7. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has emphatically submitted that by producing the Admission Register, the Transfer certificate Register and by examining the Head Master of Tulamura High School, the prosecution has fully proved that the document that was produced under a specific serial number in the form of a transfer certificate was not only forged and such forgery was within the knowledge of the petitioner. 8. 8. This court has scrutinized the records and finds that the Admission Register was produced and correctly the trial court has recorded the following observation: “Similarly, PW-3 Chitta Ranjan Das, the Assistant Headmaster of Tulamura High School, in course of his examination deposed that the transfer certificate of alleged accused was sent to him for verification and he identified the verification report marked exhibit-7 and according to him on verification of documents he found that no such transfer certificate (Exhibit-3) was issued from his school and he also identified the admission register for the period from 1966-73 and the period from 1974 to 93 marked as exhibit-10. He further deposed that a counter part of the certificate remains with the school in the relevant transfer certificate issuing book and as per exhibit-3 serial number of the transfer certificate (Exhibit-3) was 023646 dated 30.12.1991 but on 30.12.1991 no certificate was issued from that school and the Exhibit-8 i.e. transfer certificate issuing book contains the serial number 22051 to 222099 and further deposed that on verification of admission register, he found no student in the name of alleged Malindra Murasingh (Exhibit-9) and also deposed that he filed another verification report as per requisition of O/c Bodhjungnagar PS marked as Exhibit-5 and his signature marked Exhibit-5/1. The accused also by the trend of cross examination could not raise any doubt to disbelieve his evidence”. 9. The said observation has been affirmed by the impugned judgment on adding that moreover and more importantly, it is not that the accused was taken by surprise by those documents at that stage because what was being proved through those documents were reflected in the FIR itself. In this regard following sentence of the FIR marked Exhibit-8 may be referred to: “On verification, the Assistant Headmaster, Tulamura HS School vide his letter no. F.1(6-2)/HM/2004-06/828 dated 11.01.2008 has intimated that the said transfer certificate had not been issued from that school”. 10. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel, however in the course of his argument has relied on a decision in Arvind Balashanker Joshi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1991 CRI L.J. 2241 where the Gujarat High Court has observed as under : “…There may not be a direct evidence as regards the knowledge and the circumstances relied must have some nexus between the fact and presumption. On the contrary, there is a finding that Exh. On the contrary, there is a finding that Exh. 45 is not forged by the accused and in my view, once the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 468 of the I.P.C. is not proved against the accused, the accused cannot be convicted for the knowledge or reason to believe about the alleged forged document Exh. 45 and, therefore, conviction Under Section 471 of the I.P.C is bad and unsustainable. It has been observed in the case of Hira Lal Panna Lal Mahi v. State of Gujarat, 1969 Cri App R (SC) 204. Supreme Court, in para 6 of the judgment, observed as under : "We have gone through the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. It has acquitted the appellant of the offence Under Section 471 of the IPC on the specific finding that on the evidence it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellant knew or even had reason to believe that the licence in question, Exhibit 48, bore a forged signature of the officer Mr. Pillania. The High Court also is of the view that the appellant's guilt or otherwise Under Section 420 of the IPC will have to be considered only with reference to the licence Exhibit 48 given to the witness Rajaji. Prima facie, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when once the conviction of the appellant Under Section 471 of the IPC has been set aside, the High Court was not justified in convicting him Under Section 420 of the IPC. We have also gone through the evidence of Rajaji, Exhibit 47 and his evidence does not establish any false representation having been made by the appellant. On the other hand it is clear that Rajaji must have been well aware that he will not get a valid licence for driving motor vehicles. He has not gone to Pali and he has also failed in the driving test at Ahmedabad. Therefore, there is no question of the appellant having cheated Rajaji so as to be liable Under Section 420 of the IPC." [Emphasis added] 11. He has not gone to Pali and he has also failed in the driving test at Ahmedabad. Therefore, there is no question of the appellant having cheated Rajaji so as to be liable Under Section 420 of the IPC." [Emphasis added] 11. This court having appreciated the said decision of the Gujarat High Court is constrained to observe that while returning such observation that whenever the charge under Section 468 of the IPC falls through, no conviction can be sustained under Section 471 of the IPC, the Gujarat High Court has not properly read the decision of the Apex Court in Hira Lal Panna Lal Mahi (supra). The Apex Court has carefully submitted that when it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellant knew or even had reason to believe that the license in question (Exhibit-48) bore a forged signature, the guilt under Section 471 of the IPC cannot be held to be established. The knowledge or reason to believe these two words used by the Apex Court is of paramount importance to understand and properly interpret Section 471 of the IPC, which provides as under : “471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record]- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record”. 11. In this case, on appreciation of the evidence it transpires without any doubt that the petitioner had substantive knowledge of that he did not read in that school nor had he been admitted in the said school and as such he cannot have any transfer certificate. Thus, the transfer certificate what he has utilized for getting the job was forged, was within his knowledge and despite that, he had utilized that certificate. Thus, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly this petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala by 15.01.2016 to suffer the sentence as awarded by the impugned judgment. If the petitioner does not surrender within the said date, the trial court shall take all coercive measures to compel the petitioner suffer the sentence as stated. Send down the LCRs forthwith.