Karnataka High Court
Smt B S Manjula vs State By Wilson Garden Police on 26 July, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.581/2010
BETWEEN:
Smt. B.S. Manjula,
W/o. late B.C. Nagaraj,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.72/15,
4th Cross, Azadnagar,
Bangalore. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri S. Shankarappa, Adv.)
AND:
State by Wilson Garden Police
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court Building,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)
This Crl.R.P. is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction in
C.C.No.14107/2001 dated 15.6.2007 pending on the file of
VI Addl. CMM., at Bangalore and also the partly allowed
judgment of conviction dated 11.2.2010 by the P.O., FTC-
V, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.815/2007 and the petitioner may
be acquitted.
2
This Crl.R.P. coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner who has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC, has filed this criminal revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
On 16.01.1992, petitioner submitted an application along with a S.S.L.C. marks card (Ex.P3) and other documents for the post of Conductor in BMTC Office, stating that the documents produced are genuine documents. She faced interview and was selected as a Conductor, on 22.03.1993. She joined duty. Subsequently, BMTC sent the S.S.L.C. marks card submitted by the petitioner (Ex.P3), for verification to the S.S.L.C. Board, which having been verified, sent a communication to the effect that the S.S.L.C. marks card - Ex.P3, is a forged one. Petitioner had also produced a transfer certificate (Ex.P5) and the same having been sent for verification to school, a report was received to the 3 effect that the same is a forged one. A complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that in order to get the job of Conductor in the BMTC, she produced forged S.S.L.C. marks card and transfer certificate, as genuine documents, cheated BMTC and obtained the appointment. Case was registered in Crime No.316/2000 in the Wilson Garden Police Station and investigation was undertaken. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed indicating commission of offences punishable under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Accused appeared, pleaded innocence and claimed not guilty. Four witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. Trial Court found the accusation as established. Accused was convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.
3. Accused questioned the said conviction and sentence by filing an appeal under S.374(3) of Cr.P.C, in Crl.A. No.815/2007, in the Sessions Court, Bangalore. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence found that the accused had the knowledge that Ex.P3 is a forged 4 document and she claimed it as a genuine document and obtained the job. Appeal was allowed in part. The conviction was upheld. However, sentence ordered by the Trial Court for the offences under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC was modified. The custodial sentence was reduced from two years to 6 months. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused has filed this criminal revision petition.
4. Sri S. Shankarappa, learned counsel, in support of the revision petition submitted that, it is a case of prosecution having not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts since the prosecution has failed to prove the minimum requirements of law. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that the incident having taken place long ago, it is a fit case for extending the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
5. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that, cogent evidence placed on record shows that the accused 5 in order to obtain job of Conductor, produced Exs.P3 and P5, which have been found to be fraudulent documents. But for production of said documents accompanied by an affidavit, petitioner would not have got the job of Conductor in BMTC. Ex.P3 has been found to be a fraudulent document from the evidence of PW-2 whose testimony is in consonance with Ex.P2. He submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have analysed the evidence and having found that the petitioner has used forged documents as genuine documents for obtaining job in State Transport undertaking, by cheating BMTC. He submitted that, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of Ex.P3 being a fraudulent document and that she has not cheated BMTC. He submitted that since a forged document was used to cheat BMTC and obtain a job of Conductor and hence the charge under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel further submitted that, the appellate Court though has affirmed the conviction, by adopting a lenient view has modified the sentence and in a 6 case of the present nature, benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be extended.
6. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution has proved the minimum requirements of law for conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC?
7. According to the prosecution, Exs.P3 and P5, produced by the petitioner to obtain job of conductor in BMTC, are not genuine documents. There is no dispute that, Exs.P3 and P5 were submitted by the petitioner to BMTC while joining duty as a Conductor pursuant to her selection in response to a recruitment Notification dated 16.01.1992. There is also no dispute that, subsequently, Exs.P3 and P5 were sent by PW1 for verification and the reports were received from the SSLC Board and the School. PW-1 lodged the complaint - Ex.P1. The communication received from the SSLC Board in respect of 7 Ex.P3 is Ex.P2. The communication at Ex.P2 was sent by PW-2, who has deposed that Ex.P3 does not tally with the entries in the original register. He has stated that Ex.P3 is a fraudulent document. Evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P2 makes it clear that the accused has not appeared for the SSLC examination under Registration No.36387 and that the said number was allotted to one S.T. Nagaraj by the SSLC Board. PW-2 being the Secretary of the Karnataka Higher Education Board, has issued Ex.P2 and has deposed in that regard. Based on Ex.P2, the complaint was registered and the matter was investigated by PW-4, the investigating Officer.
8. Materials on record clearly show that the petitioner had sufficient knowledge of Ex.P3 being fraudulent document, which she produced as genuine document and obtained employment in State Transport undertaking, by cheating BMTC. The pretence of ignorance stands denied on perusal of cogent materials on record.
8
9. Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under S.471 of IPC. To constitute an offence under S.471, one of the ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of a document as genuine. The use of document as contemplated under S.471 must be a voluntary act. For seeking conviction under S.471, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reasonable belief that the document was a forged one. Whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the document in question to be forged, has to be adjudicated on the basis of materials placed on record.
10. The prosecution by examining PW-2 and bringing on record Exs.P2 and P3, has established beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P3 is a forged document. Petitioner knowing the said document to be not a genuine document, has produced the same and fraudulently obtained the job of a Conductor, by cheating BMTC. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have noticed the factual position in great detail. The record does not leave 9 any manner of doubt that the accused - petitioner had not only the knowledge but also reason to believe that Ex.P3 was a forged one and not a genuine document, but used it as a genuine document and obtained the job. Prosecution, by producing credible evidence, has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The minimum requirements of law for ordering conviction of the petitioner under Ss.468, 471 and 420 IPC have been made out. The findings recorded by the Courts below are neither perverse nor illegal for being interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The conviction ordered by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are well founded.
11. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned Sessions Judge has taken a liberal view. Since forged documents were made use of to obtain job in a State owned transport Corporation and an eligible candidates was deprived of the job, undue leniency cannot be shown to the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not find merit in the submission made by Sri Shankarappa to 10 extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, petitioner being a lady and the incident having taken place long ago, it would meet the ends of justice to modify the sentence.
In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.19107/2001 dated 15.06.2007 by the learned VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore, convicting the petitioner - accused under S.248 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Ss.468, 471 and 420 of IPC, is upheld. Sentence imposed by the appellate Court is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days and pay fine of `500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 15 days. Bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate, to serve the custodial sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*