JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2001 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 97 of 2001; T.R. No. 08 of 2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has been dismissed and conviction of this petitioner for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed and upheld. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision is that the petitioner fabricated and procured a fake transfer letter no. 3829/04.07.2000 (Ext.Z) allegedly issued from Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) transferring him to Minor Irrigation Division, Gumla. It appears that after receiving the above transfer order (Ext.Z), the Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla send a letter No. 837/dated 17.11.2000(Ext.2) to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar for confirmation of the above transfer letter intimating that Bhupendra Kumar Yadav (Petitioner) had reported and joined on 31.08.2000. In response to above letter, the Patna office disclosed that no such transfer letter bearing no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000 was ever issued in the name of the petitioner and thus, the FIR, was lodged against the petitioner. 4. After lodging the F.I.R., the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner who then faced trail before the learned C.J.M., Gumla and at the end of the trial, being satisfied with the prosecution case, the accused was convicted and sentenced to two years R.I. U/s 419 I.PC; five years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- fine U/s 420 I.P.C.; six years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- U/s 467 I.P.C.; five years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- fine U/s 468 I.P.C.; and one year R.I. U/S 471 I.P.C. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014, which was also dismissed and has been assailed in this Criminal Revision. 6. It appears that in the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined by prosecution. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014, which was also dismissed and has been assailed in this Criminal Revision. 6. It appears that in the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence were also adduced:-Exhibit (1) letter vide memo no. 667 dated 14.02.2001 purportedly issued by Joint Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar to Secretary Water Resources, Jharkhand Ranchi with direction to lodged FIR against the accused. Exhibit (2) letter vide memo no. 837 dated 17.11.2000 issued by Executive Engineer Gumla to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar seeking confirmation of transfer order of the petitioner vide letter no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000. Exhibit (2/1) letter no. 109 dated 17.02.2001 from Executive Engineer, Gumla to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna again seeking confirmation of transfer order. Exhibit (3) signature of Executive Engineer on the written report. Exhibit (marked X) (Last Pay Certificate) purportedly issued by Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar to Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Gumla vide letter no. 896 dated 07.09.2000. Exhibit (marked Y) office order of Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Katihar dated 28.08.2000 showing relieving of Bhupendra Kumar, Accountant Clerk, Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar on the basis of letter no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000 issued by Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. Exhibit (marked Z) Office order of Water Resourced Minor Irrigation Department State of Bihar dated 04.07.2000, Memo No. 3829 showing transfer of Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Accountant Clerk Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar to Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla till further order. Exhibit (marked X) dated 21.12.2005 again marked Exhibit I dated 12.11.2014 is the photocopy of application form for opening bank account in the name of Bhupendra Kumar Yadav by the petitioner dated 26.09.2000 and opening of S.B.I. account no. 12209. 7. After completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.p.c.. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, on the behalf of defence following original documents initially adduced in evidence were substituted from certified copy later on. Exhibit (A) C.C. certificate of Bihar School Examination Samitti. 12209. 7. After completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.p.c.. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, on the behalf of defence following original documents initially adduced in evidence were substituted from certified copy later on. Exhibit (A) C.C. certificate of Bihar School Examination Samitti. Exhibit (B) C.C. Bihar Intermediate Education Council Patna, Exhibit (C) C.C. of provisional certificate of B.A. issued from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Exhibit (D), C.C. of Mark Sheet of Bihar High School Examination Examinatioon Board, Patna, Exhibit (E) Identity card issued from Indian Election Commission and Exhibit (F) Pan Card issued from Income Tax Department. All the documents were issued in the name of Rohin Kumar. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offences as stated above which was assailed in Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014 which was also dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned Judgment and order on following main grounds. (i) The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that present petitioner is the same person, namely, Bhupendra Kumar Yadav who joined the service on the basis of fake transfer order and got the salary easily. (ii) From the very beginning, the petitioner has denied that he is not Bhupendra Kumar Yadav rather he is Rohin Kumar @ Rohin Yadav and he never joined the service in Minor Irrigation Office at any point of time. (iii) None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have been able to prove that petitioner (Rohin Kumar) had joined the service on the basis of fake transfer order. (iv) In the photocopy of account opening application form in the name of Bhupendra Kumar Yadav submitted in the SBI, Gumla (marked I) has no evidentiary value as the original application form was not called for from the concerned bank to prove its authenticity. (v) The first investigating officer has not been examined in this case which has occasioned serious prejudice in the defence of the petitioner. (vi) The incriminating circumstances taken into consideration against the petitioner in convicting him have not been put under Section 313 Cr.p.c., hence, petitioner is entitled for acquittal on this score alone. (v) The first investigating officer has not been examined in this case which has occasioned serious prejudice in the defence of the petitioner. (vi) The incriminating circumstances taken into consideration against the petitioner in convicting him have not been put under Section 313 Cr.p.c., hence, petitioner is entitled for acquittal on this score alone. (vii) On the basis of facts proved by the prosecution, no ingredient of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC have been fulfilled in this case. In the alternative it is submitted that the learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons for not extending the benefit of provisions under Section 360, 361 Cr.p.c. or the Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the petitioner to which he is entitled as it was his first offence and due to unemployment he joined the service but no monetary benefit has been gained by him and within a few months he left the job. In the premised of above point of arguments, it is submitted that impugned Judgment and order are liable to be set aside by allowing this Revision. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have meticulously apprised, scanned and evaluated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by prosecution in this case. There is concurrent findings proving the guilt of the petitioner for the offences charged against him and the sentence imposed/awarded against the petitioner are also proportionate to his guilt. The offences committed by the petitioner are very serious and heinous in nature, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any leniency in the matter of sentence and does not deserve the benefit of Prohibition of Offenders Act. There is no merits in this Revision which is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the entire aspect of the case in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution and discussed at length by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court. It appears that admittedly the petitioner was nowhere employed as an Assistant Accountant in Minor Irrigation Department. He was never appointed to the above post rather he was educated unemployed person. It appears that admittedly the petitioner was nowhere employed as an Assistant Accountant in Minor Irrigation Department. He was never appointed to the above post rather he was educated unemployed person. It is revealed by the witnesses examined in this case that the present petitioner altogether he claims to be one Rohin Yadav but managed sending of a forged transfer letter issued from Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department (Exhibit 1) vid memo no.667 dated 14.02.2000 addressed to the Secretary Water Resources, Jharkhand Ranchi. The documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution also goes to show that for last pay certificate (marked x) issued by Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar to Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla vide letter no 896 dated 07.09.2000 and relieving letter from Irrigation Department, Katihar (marked Y) on the basis of forged letter no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000 purportedly issued by Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. It also appears that on the strength of above forged document the petitioner has joined the service in Water Resources in the office of Minor Irrigation Department Gumla on 31.08.2000 in the name of Bhupendra Kumar as mentioned in the above forged letters. It is also proved by the documentary evidence that petitioner has opened a bank account at SBI Gumla wherein 4-5 months salary was also deposited which has been withdrawn by the present petitioner and in the course of enquiry when it was revealed that present petitioner has joined the service on the strength of fake documents he managed to fled away after withdrawing the money. It further appears that oral testimony of witnesses P.W. 1 Surendra Kumar (Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla), P.W. 2, Bannu Sahu (head clerk of the said department), P.W. 3 Bimal Mandal (cashier of the department), P.W. 4 Buddh Deo Oraon (correspondence clerk of the department), P.W. 5, Dineshwar Prasad Ram (Typist), P.W. 6, Sanjay Kumar Sahu have consistently deposed and proved the letters received from the concerned department of the State of Bihar regarding transfer of present petitioner which upon verification it was found to be forged document. It is also consistently proved that the present petitioner has joined service in the name of Bhupendra Kumar, although his name is Rohin Yadav. 11. It is also consistently proved that the present petitioner has joined service in the name of Bhupendra Kumar, although his name is Rohin Yadav. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis upon the identity of the present petitioner that he is not Bhupendra Kumar @ Bhupendra Yadav and none of the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove that Rohin Yadav and Bhupendra Yadav are the same person. But the above argument cannot be sustained in view of clenching evidence on record that the present petitioner himself has joined the service at Gumla on the post of Assistant Accountant, Minor Irrigation Department on the basis of forged document issued in his favour from the State of Bihar. The petitioner was fully aware about the aforesaid forged documents created in his favour and on strength of those document he joined the service at Gumla. Moreover, the petitioner himself is beneficiary of creation of forged document in his favour with the knowledge that all documents are false and forged and created to provide him employment. He joined the service and also opened a bank account at SBI, Gumla wherein few months salary was also credited which have been dishonestly withdrawn by the petitioner. It further appears that the trial court as well as appellate court have discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record at length which has not been controverted or rebutted by the present petitioner rather in his examination under Section 313 Cr.p.c. the petitioner has simply denied the imputations leveled against him and offered no valid explanation as to under what circumstances he has joined the service on the basis of fake document although he was not the person in whose name the documents pertaining to transfer to the post of Assistant Account Officer at Minor Irrigation Department Gumla were created. There is also no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that proper questions were not put regarding identity and in relation to documents used in this case to be false and forged in the examination under Section 313 Cr.p.c. of the petitioner due to which he has been prejudiced to effectively defend himself. After meticulous examination of the record I find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt in relation to charges leveled against him. After meticulous examination of the record I find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt in relation to charges leveled against him. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt of the petitioner. 12. So far as alternative plea of the petitioner that it was his first offence and due to unemployment he joined the service but no monetary benefit has been gained by him and within a few months he left the job. It is also contended that during pendency petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2004 and was released on bail on 22.07.2004 in compliance with order passed by Patna High Court in B.A. No. 2999/2004 dated 20.07.2004. Again on 22.11.2014 petitioner was taken into custody when Judgment was pronounced against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was throughout in custody during pendency of appeal and was granted bail by this Court on 19.05.2016 as such petitioner has remained in custody nearabout 2 years. It is submitted that anyhow petitioner is maintaining his family and in case of further detention, the future of children shall be ruined. Both the courts below have not assigned any special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has place reliance upon reported Judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Chandreshwar Sharma Versus State of Bihar 2001 (3) Crime 45(C) wherein it was held that question of grant of benefit of probation cast a mandatory duty upon the Magistrate to consider applicability of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and relevant provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applicable on the accused. 13. In the instant case also the petitioner has not been very much benefited from the act of cheating and forgery allegedly committed by him by joining the service as imposter to Bhupendra Kumar and also withdrawal of few months salary. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court is six years RI out of which two years have already undergone by the petitioner. In view of aforesaid scenario having regard to age, antecedent, character and circumstances of the case under which the appellant was convicted, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the provision of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act to he petitioner. In view of aforesaid scenario having regard to age, antecedent, character and circumstances of the case under which the appellant was convicted, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the provision of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act to he petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is upheld but extending the benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety before the concerned trial court for maintaining peace and good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. Petitioner is also directed to appear before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of receipt of production of copy of this order and furnish the desired bond instead of awarding the sentence imposed upon him. The concerned probation officer is also directed to furnish report about conduct and behavior of the petitioner periodically and in case of violation of terms and condition of bond in the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be called upon to appear and sustain the remaining periods of sentences already imposed upon him. 14. In view of above discussion and reason this Revision is dismissed on merits but with modification in sentences to the extent mentioned above. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment alongwith lower court record be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful.