Delhi District Court
Ca No. 13/2010 1 State vs Krishan Chand on 13 May, 2010
CA No. 13/2010 1 State Vs Krishan Chand
Judgement dt. 13.5.2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGEI, NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010
State (Delhi Administration) .....Appellant
Versus
Krishan Chand
S/o Sudhan Singh
R/o V. Rangpuri, PS Mehrauli, Delhi. .....Respondent
Date of institution in High Court : 20.9.1986
Date of institution in this court : 10.12.2007
Date of arguments : 3.5.2010
Date of judgement : 13.5.2010
JUDGEMENT
1. The State has preferred an appeal against the judgement dated 13.5.1986 passed by Ms Sunita Gupta, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case no. 219/2, State Vs Krishan Chand, FIR No. 360/76, PS Kingsway Camp.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that one Raj Roop (PW3) belonging to the village of respondent sent a complaint Ex.PW3/A alleging that respondent had secured the recruitment as a constable in DAP by producing a false educational certificate regarding his date of birth. The matter was inquired into and it was found that in the school leaving certificate, on the basis of which the respondent CA No. 13/2010 2 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 got the job, the date of birth was 1.4.1953. This certificate was found to be forged. The age limit for recruitment to the post of constable was for 18 to 21 years. However his actual date of birth was found to 1.4.1949 and therefore the accused was not eligible to get recruited being over age. FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. On these accusations a charge under Section 420/467/471 IPC was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined following witnesses : PW1 ASI Jagdish Prasad recorded the FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 SI Ram Singh recorded the statement of one Raj Roop and the Principal namely Karan Singh.
PW3 Raj Roop is the complainant and turned hostile and stated that he has not sent the said complaint.
PW4 Rajinder Singh testified that he had sent a letter no. 252 Viz/Comptt/76 dated 21.4.76 to S.P. North District, which is Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Sh. Parkan Ali testified that he obtained the school leaving certificate of the respondent from the record and gave it to SI Sultan Singh vide memo Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Gurdayal Chand Inspector testified that on 30.6.1977 he was working in 2nd Battalion DAP. On 30.6.1977 he handed over CA No. 13/2010 3 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 the attestation form mark Q2, Q2B, Q3 vide memo Ex.PW6/A to SI Sardar Singh. He brought the relevant file and proved the copy of the standing order no. 212 as Ex.PW6/A. He also proved termination order of the accused as Ex.PW6/B. He testified that respondent Krishan Chand was appointed as constable on 15.2.1973.
PW7 ASI Ram Kumar testified that he could not get the original appointment record of the respondent as the same has been destroyed.
PW8 SI Sultan Singh testified that on 22.4.1976 he collected the school leaving certificate Ex.PW8/A vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A from ASI Parkan Ali.
PW9 Sh. Karam Singh the Principal of Boys Higher Secondary School, Mahipalpur testified that he was working as Principal in that school from 1974 to 1976. Thereafter he was transferred to Madanpur. He testified that the certificate Ex.PW8/A (i.e. the school leaving certificate available in police record) was not issued by him. He testified that after verifying the school record the date of birth of respondent was 1.4.1949. He proved the relevant record as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Vichiter Singh TGT in Government Higher Secondary School, Mahipalpur testified that he remained posted in the said school since 15.12.1973 to 2.1.1984. He testified that according to CA No. 13/2010 4 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 the school leaving certificate serial no. 169974, the date of birth of the respondent is 1.4.1949. As per admission register no. 949, respondent studied in the school upto 11.3.1970. He stated that the date of birth in Ex.PW8/A the admission number of Krishan Chand is written as 949 and serial number shown as 486852 whereas on the counterfoil/school record brought by him the serial number is 169974 issued on 14.7.1970. He however could not identify that it bears the signatures of one Madan Mohan Mittal, the Principal at the relevant time, on Ex.PW8/A. PW11 Chandu Lal TGT of this school proved that as per the admission register Ex.PW11/A the date of birth of respondent is 1.4.1949 and the school leaving certificate Ex.PW11/B also shows that the said date. He left the school on 11.3.1970.
PW12 Ct. Pradeep Kumar brought the record from the department.
PW13 Sh. S. N. Gupta the then Ld. MACT, Shahdara testified that respondent gave his specimen hand writing for the comparison.
PW14 SI Sardar Singh investigated the case.
5. In statement under Section 313 CrPC respondent admitted that he had given school leave certificate Ex.PW8/A showing his date of birth as 1.4.1953 to the police department and was recruited in Delhi Police on the basis of same. He further stated that school leaving certificate was issued by Sh. M. M. Mittal, the Principal of CA No. 13/2010 5 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 the school and that the certificate is genuine. In respect of the other evidence i.e. admission register and school leaving record, the respondent did not give any explanation.
6. In his defence the respondent examined following witnesses :
DW1 Sh. M. M. Mittal testified that he was Principal in Government Higher Secondary School at Mahipalpur at the relevant time but he testified that Ex.PW8/A has not been signed by him. He also testified that Ex.DA, (which is an attested copy of school leaving certificate bearing a name Sh. M. M. Mittal) also does not bear his signatures. He testified that Ex.DB might bear his signatures. However Ex.DB, which is statement of marks, does not show date of birth. Perusal of this witness would show that his testimony is actually supporting the prosecution case that Ex.PW8/A is a forged document as the same was not issued by Sh. M. M. Mittal, the Principal of the school.
DW2 Sh. K. K. Kaushik is a Senior Clerk from CBSE and he brought a duplicate/counterfoil of Higher Secondary Examination 1974 for Roll No.64089 of Krishan Chand. He testified that it bears the date of birth as 1.4.1953.
DW3 Dilbagh Singh Dahiya Statistical Computer Health Department MCD stated that as per his record the date of birth of Krishan Chand is 1.4.1953.
DW4 Kamal Singh is the Pradhan of Village Rangpuri and CA No. 13/2010 6 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 testified that as per the record of Panchayat he issued a certificate Ex.DW4/A which shows his date of birth as 1.4.1953.
7. After considering the above stated evidence Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate relied upon the testimony of DW2 Sh. K. K. Kaushik, who proved a certificate of Higher Secondary Examination 1974 showing the date of birth of respondent as 1.4.1953. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has ignored the fact that this certificate Ex.D2/B was issued on 5.11.1974 and the perusal of this certificate would show that the respondent had appeared as a private candidate for this examination, which was held in March 1974. As per the school record the respondent had left the school on 11.7.1970 and he appeared in Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1974. It was for the respondent to give evidence as to on what basis he gave his date of birth for Higher Secondary Examination 1974 as 1.4.1953. In private examinations all the particulars are to be supplied by the candidate himself and therefore it was the duty of the respondent to prove as to what document was used by him to state his date of birth as 1.4.1953 while applying for the Higher Secondary Examination as a private candidate. Therefore I am of the opinion that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has not carefully gone through this certificate and has therefore reached to a wrong conclusion.
8. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate further relied upon th testimony of CA No. 13/2010 7 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 DW3 Dilbagh Singh Dahiya Statistical Computer Health MCD, who proved the date of birth of respondent as Ex.DW3/A wherein the date of birth has shown as 1.4.1953. I am of the opinion that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has not appropriately appreciated this document. Ex.DW3/A is a "Special" certificate of birth. It shows the date of registeration as 10.3.1981. The evidence of DW3 was recorded on 21.2.1986. The perusal of this certificate would show that name of informant has been written as Krishan Chand i.e. the respondent himself. This show that the birth certificate was got prepared during the trial by the respondent by giving the particulars of date of birth to the concerned office with a view to create a false defence.
9. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has further relied upon DW4 Kamal Singh the Pradhan of Village Rangpuri. He testified that after verifying the record of Panchayat he issued the the certificate Ex.DW4/A certifying the date of birth of respondent as 1.4.1953. However in cross examination he states that he has not brought the original record because the record has been transferred to the corporation. He also stated that the Chowkidar of the village also maintains a register but Chowkidar is also not available in the village. Once the original record is not produced, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly admitted this document as proof of the age of the respondent. The original record as per the testimony of DW4 CA No. 13/2010 8 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 was available with the corporation and the respondent could have summoned the relevant original record. But in absence of the said record, the certificate given by DW4 regarding the date of birth is of no value.
10. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in her impugned judgement has taken a very simplistic view that there are two sets of the documents and therefore the benefit of doubt was given on the assumption that some clerical mistake has crept in school record where date of birth has shown as 1.4.1953. I disagree with the finding of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. As per the school record respondent was duly issued a school leaving certificate, copy of which is Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C. This record shows that the actual number of school leaving certificate was 169984, whereas school leaving certificate Ex.PW8/A submitted by the respondent to the police department for recruitment bears a number 48652. The school record and the record of school leaving certificate available with the school shows the date of birth as 1.4.1949 whereas the Ex.PW8/A shows the date of birth as 1.4.1953. DW1 himself has testified that the signatures at point A on Ex.PW8/A does not belong to him. I may point out that DW1 Sh. M. M. Mittal was the Principal of the school during the relevant time.
11. Therefore there is crystal clear evidence that there is no mistake in recording of the date of birth in the school record. The CA No. 13/2010 9 State Vs Krishan Chand Judgement dt. 13.5.2010 prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.PW8/A is a forged document. It is neither signed by the Principal of the school nor its number tallies with the number of actual school leaving certificate duplicate of which is available in school records. In fact the respondent has further given a false date of birth for Higher Secondary Examination to authenticate his fake date of birth. Thereafter even during trial he created false evidence by getting issued a Special birth certificate with a wrong date of birth.
12. However there is nothing on record to show that respondent himself had forged the document Ex.PW8/A but his conduct and circumstances of this case fully show that he knew that Ex.PW8/A is a forged document and he fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as genuine. I accordingly convict the respondent under Section 471 IPC. However I do not consider this document to be a valuable security and accordingly Section 467 IPC is not attracted. Therefore the judgement of acquittal passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside and respondent is convicted under Section 471 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 13.5.2010.
(VINOD KUMAR)
Additional Sessions Judge01
North District, THC, Delhi
CA No. 13/2010 10 State Vs Krishan Chand
Judgement dt. 13.5.2010
IN THE COURT OF SH VINOD KUMAR ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH DISTRICT DELHI Criminal Appeal No. 13/10 State Vs Kishan Chand 15.5.2010.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Pre: Ms Alka Goyal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
Convict/Respondent with counsel Sh Parminder Sehrawat, advocate.
1. Arguments on sentence heard.
2. The FIR against the convict was registered in the year 1976. He was acquitted by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate in the year 1986. Thereafter appeal was pending in the High Court which was transferred to this court, and has now reached its culmination.
3. Ld counsel for convict argues that the convict has suffered rigours of trial for last 34 years. In the meantime, he has been dismissed from the service and is now more than 60 years of age. Therefore, it is prayed that the convict may be released on probation.
4. On the other hand, Ld Addl. Public Prosecutor prays for full dose of sentence on the ground that such type of offences have played fraud with the Selection System and that such crimes must not be treated with leniency.
CA No. 13/2010 11 State Vs Krishan Chand
Judgement dt. 13.5.2010
5. I have considered facts and circumstances and I am of the opinion that sentencing a convict to imprisonment after such a long time would not serve the purpose, more so, in the circumstances that, otherwise the convict has led a life of a peaceful citizen. Considering all facts and circumstances, I release the convict on probation of good behaviour for a period of three years on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 5000/ with one surety in like amount subject to the condition that during this period, he shall be of good behaviour and keep peace and shall not repeat the offence and that he shall receive sentence as and when required by this court. However, the State which had spent money and time for such a long period for prosecuting the convict, must also be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of Section 5 (1)(b) Probation of Offender Act 1958, I impose upon the convict cost of proceedings to a sum of Rs 50,000/. In default of payment of cost of proceedings, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Bail bond, surety bond cancelled. After realization of cost of proceedings payable by the convict to the State, appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment be sent alongwith the TCR to the Successor Court for its consignment to Record Room.
CA No. 13/2010 12 State Vs Krishan Chand
Judgement dt. 13.5.2010
Announced in open court
on 15.5.2010. VINOD KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTT, DELHI
Note: Probation bonds furnished by the convict. Cost of proceedings amounting to Rs 50,000/ has also been deposited by him vide Receipt No. 894130.