JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Petitioner had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Trial Court ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the present petition by the accused. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution story was that the accused on the basis of forged mark-sheet had got the job. Department had got the reports from the concerned Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University. It was reported that the degree in question, which was under verification had not been issued by the said university. However, the person who had prepared the report Exhibit-P-3A had not been examined during trial. Investigating Officer had also not been examined during trial. Thus, the guilt of the petitioner was not established by the prosecution during trial. 3. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. During trial, prosecution examined PW Chidda Singh and PW Dr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal. The said witnesses deposed that in the year 1995 degrees obtained by teachers from other States were got verified. When the degree of the petitioner was got verified, it was reported vide Exhibit-P-3A by the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University that the degree under question was forged. However, during trial, the person, who had written letter Exhibit-P-3A was not examined as a witness. Investigating Officer was also not examined during trial. Petitioner had been denied his valuable rights to cross-examine the person who had issued letter Exhibit-P-3A or the Investigating Officer. 5. PW Chidda Singh, who had gone to Lucknow and had brought the letter Exhibit-P-3A has stated in his cross-examination that the said letter was not prepared in his presence. He could not tell that in the year 1987, who had appeared in the examination under Roll Number in question. He had not himself seen the relevant record nor had obtained the copies of the relevant record. He further stated that he did not remember if he had been given the photo-copy of Exhibit-P-1A and Exhibit-P-2A or the original or photo-copy of the degree of the petitioner when he had gone to Lucknow. In case, he had taken the record in this regard, it must be lying with the Lucknow University. 6. He further stated that he did not remember if he had been given the photo-copy of Exhibit-P-1A and Exhibit-P-2A or the original or photo-copy of the degree of the petitioner when he had gone to Lucknow. In case, he had taken the record in this regard, it must be lying with the Lucknow University. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case, the prosecution story is rendered doubtful in view of the complete reading of the statement of PW Chidda Singh and the fact that the person who had prepared Exhibit-P-3A has not been examined during trial. Whenever, a prosecution case is rendered doubtful, benefit of the same is to be extended to the accused. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioner is liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. 8. Accordingly, Petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be acquitted from the charges framed against him. Consequently, the judgments/orders of the Courts below are set aside.