Bangalore District Court
State By Halsurgate Police vs Was Working As Iec Consultant In The on 7 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of February 2022.
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.10525/2019
Date of Offence : 15-05-2011
Name of complainant : State by Halsurgate Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : G.Nagarathna Bhat
D/o. Ganapathy Bhat,
aged 49 years,
R/o. Thalagodumane,
Balehole Post,
Moodagere taluk,
Chikkamagalur district.
( By Sri. K.C.Krishnappa, Advocate)
Offences complained off: U/s.420, 465, 468, 471
of IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 7-2-2022
2 C.C.No.10525/2019
JUDGMENT
PSI, Halsurgate Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused above named for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that :-
Accused was working as IEC Consultant in the office of Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency under Swatch Bharath Mission from 15.15.2011 under yearly contract basis, in their office situated at 2 nd floor, Cauveri Bhavan, KHB Building of K.G. road, Bengaluru. In the year 2016 the said department with an intention to regularize service of such employees, forwarded Master of Social Work (MSW) marks card of accused to Karnataka State Open University, Mysore to verify and furnish report with regard to authenticity of said marks card. In response to said letter C.W.4 furnished reply to above department that the 3 C.C.No.10525/2019 aforesaid marks card of accused is fabricated and fake one. Thereby it was confirmed that accused had created and concocted aforesaid fake mark card of her MSW degree with an intention to get above job, she furnished the same to aforesaid authority knowing fully well that it is fake and created one and she further cheated the Government by producing the above marks card to secure above job under false misrepresentation of her education.
Thereafter C.W.1 lodged first information before SHO, Halsurgate PS on 24-7-2016. The concerned police registered the case in their PS Cr.No.174/2016 and issued FIR. It further shows that I.O. has secured the relevant marks card and certificates produced by accused during investigation and again addressed a letter to Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and said University furnished information that the above marks card of accused are not issued by their 4 C.C.No.10525/2019 University. After recording statements of material witnesses and after completion of investigation, I.O.
filed charge sheet against accused for above offences.
3. After filing of charge sheet, cognizance of above offences is taken and summons issued. Accused has appeared before this court and she is enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy is furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed. Accused has not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and she has claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked 14 documents as per Exs.P1 to P14. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused as required under Section 5 C.C.No.10525/2019 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused has denied entire incriminating evidence against her and she has not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused with an intention to get job of IEC Consultant in the office of Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, situated at Cauvery Bhavan Bengaluru, fraudulently produced fake and fabricated marks card of Master of Social Work degree with an intention to induce said department to give her said job and on the basis of such fake marks card she got appointment for aforesaid post and received benefits of said service and thereby the accused has cheated the above department and Government and committed offence punishable under section 420 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has forged and created 6 C.C.No.10525/2019 aforesaid marks card of Master of Social Work, as if it was issued by Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and thereby she has committed offence punishable under section 465 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has forged and created aforesaid marks card of Master of Social Work degree as if it was issued by Karnataka State Open University, Mysore with an intention to cheat the above department and Government for getting aforesaid job of IEC consultant in Karnataka Rural Water supply and Sanitation department and thereby she has committed offence punishable under section 468 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has produced the aforesaid forged and created MSW Marks Card before karnataka Rural Water supply and Sanitation department for getting aforesaid job of IEC consultant as a genuine document, knowing fully well that same is created and concocted one and thereby she has committed offence punishable under section 471 of IPC?7 C.C.No.10525/2019
5. What order ?
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 and 4 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 and 3 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 to 4:- These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.
8. In support of his contention prosecution has got examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6. At the outset it is necessary to consider evidence of C.Ws.1/PW5.
C.W.1 B.Krishnappa S/o Byrappa, who is first informant and the then Assistant Director of Swatch Bharath Mission and Deputy Secretary of RWSS 8 C.C.No.10525/2019 Department is examined as P.W.5 and he has testified in his evidence that from October 2014 to June 2017, he has worked as Assistant Director of Swatch Bharath Mission and Deputy Secretary, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department. Bengaluru. He has further stated that he knows accused when she was working as Co-Ordinator in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department. He has further stated that accused worked in said office from 2009 upto she was relieved and she was in-sourced on 'ad- hoc' basis. P.W.5 has further stated that as per procedure in the month of December 2014 performance of accused was reviewed and there was instructions from concerned Minister to regularize the services of such candidates, who have already put in service of five years and above. P.W.5 has further stated that a committee was constituted to verify records of such candidates and on verification of records of accused, same were found to be suspicious 9 C.C.No.10525/2019 in nature. Thereafter he forwarded copy of marks cards of accused to Registrar of Manasa Gangothri, Karnataka Open State University, Mysore and concerned Registrar issued a letter stating that the marks card is fake and fabricated. P.W.5 has further testified that accordingly in the month of July 2017 they relieved accused from service and after submission of file to their Commissioner, he directed him to lodge a complaint before concerned police. Accordingly he lodged first information on 24-7-2016 as per Ex.P3 and he has identified his signature on it as per Ex.P3(b). This witness has identified report of aforesaid University, letter dated 16-6-2016 issued by their office as per Ex.P10, copy of marks card given as per Ex.P11, copy of required qualification letter issued by their department as per Ex.P12 and notice issued to accused dated 4-7-2016 as per Ex.P13. In cross-examination by defence side, P.W.5 has admitted that generally they verify documents at the 10 C.C.No.10525/2019 time of appointment of candidates and their Committee had verified documents submitted by accused at that time. However, quite contrary to above suggestions it is suggested to P.W.5 that accused had not given any documents in respect of MSW Education, which is denied by P.W.5. P.W.5 has further stated that they do not verify the documents during annual review and they had served show cause notice to accused after receiving reply from Registrar of concerned Open University. Further the competency of P.W.5 to lodge complaint is denied, but nothing explained as to how he is not competent to lodge above information. P.W.5 has admitted that accused had formed an association for regularization of service of such employees by pressurizing department, but he pleads ignorance if she was President of said Association. The entire evidence of this witness is denied and it is suggested to him that though accused had not given alleged false marks 11 C.C.No.10525/2019 card, they themselves have created it and foisted false case against her. Thus above suggestions to P.W.5 reveal clear defence of accused that she has not given alleged Ex.P11 created copy of marks-card to above department, but she does not deny joining service as IEC consultant in above department on ad-hoc basis nor required qualifications for said post are disputed by her as per Ex.P12 letter. Though it is suggested to P.W.5 that their department itself had created the above marks card, nothing is put forth by accused as to what action was initiated by her against department for said act nor she has produced any documents to show that she had replied Ex.P13 show cause notice issued by department, wherein serious allegations of production of fake and fabricated document are intimated to her.
9. C.W.4/P.W.6 Dr.A.Rangaswamy S/o Annegowda the then Registrar of Evaluation in 12 C.C.No.10525/2019 Karnataka State Open University, Mysore has testified that in the year 2017 as per requisition of Halsurgate police, he has issued a letter seeking verification of marks card of accused, who was in Rural Sanitation Department and he replied said requisition seeking original marks card of accused. He has further stated that thereafter police forwarded original marks card of accused for verification and he verified said marks cards by comparing registration number and found that marks cards were issued by University (which appears to be not issued by University and due to typographical error the word 'not' is omitted during recording of evidence). However, on going through Ex.P4 reply of P.W.6 to I.O., it clearly shows that he has denied that the marks cards furnished by accused belongs to their University. P.W.6 has further stated that he has issued reply to police and he has identified the letter dated 26-9-2017 as per Ex.P14 and his signature on it as per Ex.P14(a). He has also 13 C.C.No.10525/2019 identified letter dated 29-10-2018 as per Ex.P4 and his signature on it as per Ex.P4(a). The aforesaid reply of P.W.6 clearly goes to show that he has verified Exs.P5 to P8 documents of aforesaid alleged MSW degree of accused, said to have been produced by accused herself before and he has found the same to be fake and fabricated. P.W.6 has clearly stated that the above marks cards are not issued by their University, which is a strong ground to believe that same are created and concocted one.
10. P.W.1 Swamigowda S/o Chikkannegowda has testified in his evidence that on 19-9-2018 while he was working as PC in Halsurgate PS, he and C.W.6 were deputed for search of accused at Chikkamagalur and accordingly he went to Banehole village of Mudigere taluk, Chikkamagalur, as per credible information, he brought accused to Bengaluru and produced before SHO of their PS. He has further 14 C.C.No.10525/2019 stated that he submitted her report before SHO as per Ex.P1 and identified his signature on it as per Ex.P1(a). However, in cross-examination the entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side in toto. But Ex.P 9 letter addressed by accused herself to I.O. on 21-9-2018 clearly reveal that she herself has produced Exs.P5 to P8 documents before I.O, which is grounds to believe that she was produced before I.O. for interrogation.
11. Further P.W.2 Reshma Bhanu W/o Shoukath has testified in her evidence that while she was working as PC in Halsurgate PS on 19-9-2018, she and P.W.1 were deputed for search of accused and accordingly they had been to Banehole village of Mudigere taluk and produced accused before SHO with report. Her evidence is consistent with evidence of P.W.1 and it is a ground to believe that accused was produced before I.O. for interrogation and accused 15 C.C.No.10525/2019 herself had given Ex.P9 letter with Exs.P5 to P8 fake documents of her Master in Social Work Degree.
12. P.W.3 Soorachar S/o Siddachar the then PSI of Halsurgate PS has testified in his evidence that on 24- 7-2016 at 3.30 p.m. C.W.1 appeared before him and lodged first information as per Ex.P2. He has further stated that he has registered the case in their PS Cr.No.174/2016 and issued FIR to the Court. He has identified the FIR as per Ex.P2 and first information as per Ex.P3. P.W.3 has further testified in his evidence that on 10-9-2018 he has made correspondence with Karnataka State Open University to furnish the registration number of accused and he was asked to send the original marks card of accused. He has further stated that on 19-9-2018 he secured accused by issuing notice through his staff i.e., P.W.1 and 2 and accused has produced her original marks card before him on 21-9-2018. He has further stated that 16 C.C.No.10525/2019 he has forwarded original marks card and other documents to Karnataka State Open University and said University have replied that there are no files belonging to accused in their University. He has identified a report issued by said University in that regard as per Ex.P4. P.W.3 has further stated that he issued a notice to accused seeking to produce her education documents and on 11-12-2018 accused has appeared before him and sought time to produce it. He has further stated that thereafter accused did not appear before him and he has identified her statement of marks bearing Sl.No.M10101734, migration certificate bearing Sl.No.18265, provisional pass certificate bearing Sl.No.19149 in the name of Karnataka State Open University, Mysore as per Exs.P5 to P8. In cross examination be defence side, it is suggested to this witness that he has not received Ex.P5 to 8 from accused,which is denied by him. But this witness admits that he has not obtained opinion 17 C.C.No.10525/2019 of experts with regad to said documents and he has not enquired persons who signed said documents. Further he has also admitted that he has not found persons who have put seal and signtures on such documents and entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side. However evidence of I.O. inspires confidence of the Court with regard to securing Ex.P.5 to 8 documents by him from accused and ascertaining that said documents are fake, by making necessary correspondence with concerned university.
13. P.W.4 Haleshappa H.P. S/o Veerappa H. has testified in his evidence that he was working as a Co- ordinator in Swatch Bharath Abhiyan and at that time he was called upon as a witness to the documents produced by accused. He has further stated that the document dated 21-9-2018 bears his signature, which is marked as Ex.P9 and he has identified his signature 18 C.C.No.10525/2019 on it as per Ex.P9(a). P.W.4 has identified Exs.P5 to P8 marks cards given by accused under said document. On perusal of Ex.P9 letter it clearly shows that accused herself has produced Ex.P3 to P6 documents under said letter, which appears to be in her own handwriting and the I.O. has seized the same under P.F.No.89/2018 of this case. Further Ex.P9 also bears the signature of accused and I.O., which are not identified by concerned I.O/P.W.3 for the reason best known to him. In cross-examination by defence side the entire evidence of this witness is denied and it is suggested to him that accused has not produced Exs.P5 to P8 documents. it is suggested to this witness that the accused has formed an union for regularization of jobs in their department and at that time this case has been filed against her. However, though P.W.4 admits such suggestions, same does not absolve burden of accused to prove the genuineness of said document much less to prove that same were not 19 C.C.No.10525/2019 produced by her during investigation under Ex.P9. The accused has maintained silence with regard to Ex.P9 document and nothing is suggested to P.W.4 and I.O. with regard to Ex.P9 document under which so called created Exs.P3 to P8 documents are produced by herself before I.O. Hence evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P9 document inspires confidence of the court that said documents are produced by accused herself before I.O. Further though C.W.3 Ananth S/o V.Thimmaiah is given up by prosecution, the evidence of said witness does not appears to be necessary to prove Ex.P9 in view of cogent evidence of P.W.4 and I.O.
14. Thus on perusal of entire evidence of prosecution, it shows that the accused does not deny and dispute of joining the aforesaid Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency as a IEC consultant as per Ex.P12 qualification 20 C.C.No.10525/2019 requirements, but she asserts that she has not given any so called created documents to said department. Further though the I.O. has produced true copies of Agreement dated 15.05.2011 between accused and aforesaid Rural Water supply sanitation agency, document of consultant charges, TDS statement of accused, proceedings of meeting of committee dated 28-2-2011 deputing accused as a co-ordinator for Haveri and Gadag districts and also her appointment order on ad-hoc basis for said post, same are not identified by concerned I.O. nor anything is whishpered in respect of said documents. However this Court can take judicial notice of said documents as the accused does not dispute joining said job. The I.O. has also produced true copies of notice dated 22-2-2011 and letter dated 10-5-2011 addressed to accused by aforesaid department, said documents are also not marked or identified by I.O. in evidence. However, said 21 C.C.No.10525/2019 documents sufficiently show that appointment and continuation of aforesaid job of accused from time to time and hence same are sufficient to believe that accused was appointed as consultant in above department on ad-hoc basis. Further as already stated above Ex.P12 letter identified by P.W.5 clearly shows that minimum qualification for said post for aforesaid job is post graduation in social work/ sociology /rural development/ economics/ geography with three years of experience in rural community. When accused does not dispute such qualification, burden lies upon her to prove as to on what basis she secured aforesaid job, if she has not produced Ex.P11 fake markscard before said department during her appointment. Further P.W.5 has identified aforesaid Ex.P10 document addressed by Commissioner of the Department to Registrar of concerned Karnataka Open University along with Ex.P11 so called fake markscard. Further though 22 C.C.No.10525/2019 the reply given by Karnataka State Open University to the Commissioner of RDWS&S Department dated 28-6-2016 is produced before this court, said document is also not identified by I.O. However, the court can take notice of said document also, which sufficiently shows that Ex.P11 copy of marks card produced by accused before said department is fake and fabricated one. Further in cross-examination of P.W.1, absolutely there is no explanation about documents produced by accused and Ex.P11. Though it is suggested to P.W.1 that said documents are created by department itself, in view of protest raised by accused for regularization of service, said ground is not sufficient to believe that she is innocent. Further if at all said documents were created and concocted, the accused would have definitely replied Ex.P13 show cause notice issued to her by above department and she could have also taken suitable criminal action in that regard. 23 C.C.No.10525/2019 The silence of accused in respect of said aspect is a ground to believe that she has furnished aforesaid fake and fabricated marks card to secure job, though she has not completed Master Degree in social work from aforesaid Open University.
15. Further though the accused has taken defence that she has not furnished Ex.P3 to P8 marks card, Ex.P9 and evidence of P.W.4 have already sufficiently proved production of said documents by her before I.O. with letter of her own handwriting. Further P.W.3- I.O. has testified with regard to securing said documents and forwarding it to Registrar of Karnataka State Open University Mysore as per letter dated 22-9-2017, which is also not identified by I.O. However, Court can take judicial notice of said document and the reply given by P.W.6 as per Ex.P4 clearly depict that the aforesaid Exs.P3 to P8 are also created and 24 C.C.No.10525/2019 concocted as same are not issued by said University. Hence these all aspects are sufficient to hold that accused had knowledge that she has not completed Post Graduation (Master degree ) in Social Work and she obtained Exs.P3 to P8 fake documents and also furnished Ex.P11 fake copy of marks card to Rural Development Department to secure job of a consultant as per Ex.P12 qualification letter, with an intention to induce said department to appoint her for above job and thereby she has committed fraud and cheating on said department, Government and also to lawful and eligible aspirants of said job with required qualification.
16. In this regard it is necessary to consider Sec.420 of IPC, which reads thus:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property 25 C.C.No.10525/2019 to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
On careful perusal of aforesaid provision it clearly shows that false representation and mens
-rea are essential ingredients of such offence. Further in above case it shows that accused had intention to cheat above Department to induce it to deliver the job, which also comes under purview of property and she had mens-rea at the time of making inducement of getting job.
It is also necessary to consider Sec.471 of IPC, which reads thus:
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[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].26 C.C.No.10525/2019
On careful perusal of aforesaid provisions it shows that to attract above offence the accused should fraudulently and dishonestly used a forged document as genuine, knowing fully well that it is a forged or she has reason to believe that it is forged. In present case also the prosecution has proved that the accused has used Ex.P11 copy of marks card and she has also produced Exs.P3 to P8 documents before I.O. asserting the same to be genuine, though she knew that same were forged and created one. The accused had knowledge that she has not completed aforesaid degree and though P.W.3/I.O. had insisted her to produce further documents of her studies of such course, she has not put forth any materials to show that she had written aforesaid exams and she was issued above marks cards and certificates, as per her version of voluntary statement. Hence these all aspects are ground to believe that accused produced Exs.P3 to P8 27 C.C.No.10525/2019 documents before I.O. and Ex.P11 copy of fake marks card before aforesaid department to secure the job of consultant as genuine, despite she had knowledge that same are forged and created one. These all aspects are sufficient to believe that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections of 420 and 471 of IPC.
As far as Sec.465 and 468 of IPC are concerned, it is necessary to cull out said sections
465. Punishment for forgery.--Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
On careful perusal of ingredients of said offences it shows that in order to attract said offences the accused should have prepared false document, 28 C.C.No.10525/2019 fraudulently and dishonestly for the purpose of committing fraud with an intention for causing wrongful gain to himself or to someone or to cause wrongful loss to another. However, though accused has produced Ex.P11 fake copy of marks card, though she has also furnished Ex.P3 to P8 fake marks cards, no steps have been taken by I.O. in order to prove the source from which the accused obtained such documents much less to prove that accused herself forged and created said documents. It is necessary to consider voluntary statement of accused said to have been recorded by I.O., which clearly shows that one Raju Sirsi had assured her to provide aforesaid fake documents on payment of fee of Rs.15,000/- and accordingly she appeared exams in the year 2010-2011 at examination centres of Dharwad district. However, PW3/I.O. has not collected any further materials nor he has enquired the aforesaid Raju Sirsi or concerned staff of 29 C.C.No.10525/2019 examination centre, which is stated in voluntary statement of accused. Further I.O. has also not recovered any material objects to prove creation of above documents nor he has obtained any specimen handwriting or signature of accused to prove that she herself has created and concocted Exs.P3 to P8 and Ex.P11 documents. In the absence of such materials, it is difficult to believe that accused has also committed offences punishable u/s 465 and 468 of IPC by creating aforesaid documents. Hence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused is guilty of offences punishable u/s 420 and 471 of IPC. However prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offences punishable u/s 465 and 468 of IPC. Hence point No.1 and 4 are answered in the Affirmative and point No.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
30 C.C.No.10525/2019
17. Point No.5: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 4 , following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 of IPC.
The prosecution has proved that accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 of IPC.
Kept for hearing on
sentence.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7 th day of February 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru Heard on sentence of accused. Shri M.A.A. for accused has argued that accused is old aged lady and she is taking care of her old aged parents. Further she is sole bread earner of the family and if 31 C.C.No.10525/2019 she is sentenced with severe punishment, her family will be on the streets and they will face irreparable loss and injury. He has further argued that the accused is suffering from financial constraints and she intends to prefer appeal to prove her innocence. Hence he has prayed for leniency and to release accused on proper admonition under Probation of Offenders Act.
On the other hand, learned Sr.APP has vehemently argued that offences committed by accused is heinous one and same are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years. Hence she has prayed to impose maximum sentence for offences under Sec.420 and 471 of IPC.
However, it is proved that accused has cheated her department, Government and innocent eligible candidates of aforesaid job by fraudulently producing false documents of her Master Degree in Social Work and she has induced her department to 32 C.C.No.10525/2019 give her aforesaid job. Hence the alleged offences are against the society and State and as such the benefits of P.O. Act cannot be extended in present case. However, as argued by learned counsel for accused, the accused appears to be a lady of more than 50 years and it is said that she is maintaining her old aged parents. Hence if accused is sentenced to severe punishment, it would affect her old aged parents. In view of said facts the accused may be sentenced to under go minimum period of imprisonment of 6 months each to aforesaid offences, which shall run concurrently and she may also be directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for above offences. Hence following is:
ORDER Under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sec.420 and 471 of IPC.33 C.C.No.10525/2019
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.420 of IPC and in default to pay said fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.471 of IPC and in default to pay said fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Supply free copy of this judgment to accused.
(Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7 th day of February 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.34 C.C.No.10525/2019
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Swamigowda P.W.2, Reshma Bhanu, P.W.3, Soorachar, P.W.4, Haleshappa H.P. P.W.5, B.Krishnappa P.W.6, Dr.A.Rangaswamy;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Report,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2, First information report,
Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P3, Complaint,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P3(b), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P4, Letter dated 29-10-2018,
Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P5 to
Ex.P8, Marks cards,
Ex.P9, Letter addressed by accused to I.O.
on 21-9-2018
Ex.P9(a), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P10, Copy of letter dated 16-6-2016,
Ex.P11, Copy of marks card,
Ex.P12, Qualification detail letter,
Ex.P13, Copy of notice issued to accused
dated 4-7-2016,
Ex.P14, Letter dated 26-9-2017,
Ex.P14 (a) Signature of P.W.6;
35 C.C.No.10525/2019
List of material object :
NIL
List of Witnesses examined for defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for defence:-
NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.36 C.C.No.10525/2019
7-2-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 of IPC.
The prosecution has proved that accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 of IPC.
Kept for hearing on
sentence.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.
37 C.C.No.10525/2019
Heard on sentence of accused. Shri M.A.A. for accused has argued that accused is old aged lady 38 C.C.No.10525/2019 and she is taking care of her old aged parents. Further she is sole bread earner of the family and if she is sentenced with severe punishment, her family will be on the streets and they will face irreparable loss and injury. He has further argued that the accused is suffering from financial constraints and she intends to prefer appeal to prove her innocence. Hence he has prayed for leniency and to release accused on proper admonition under Probation of Offenders Act.
On the other hand, learned Sr.APP has vehemently argued that offences committed by accused is heinous one and same are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years. Hence she has prayed to impose maximum sentence for offences under Sec.420 and 471 of IPC.
However, it is proved that accused has cheated her department, Government and innocent eligible candidates of aforesaid job by fraudulently producing false documents of her Master Degree in Social Work and she has induced her department to give her aforesaid job. Hence the alleged offences are against the society and State and as such the benefits of P.O. Act cannot be extended in present case. However, as argued by learned counsel for 39 C.C.No.10525/2019 accused, the accused appears to be a lady of more than 50 years and it is said that she is maintaining her old aged parents. Hence if accused is sentenced to severe punishment, it would affect her old aged parents. In view of said facts the accused may be sentenced to under go minimum period of imprisonment of 6 months each to aforesaid offences, which shall run concurrently and she may also be directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for above offences. Hence following is:
ORDER Under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sec.420 and 471 of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.420 of IPC and in default to pay said fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.471 of IPC and in default to pay said fine amount, she 40 C.C.No.10525/2019 shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.
Both sentences shall run concurrently. Supply free copy of this judgment to accused.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.