Bangalore District Court
Ramachandra vs Srikanth Reddy on 27 November, 2025
1
C.C. No.1874/2021
KABC030066202021
THE COURT OF THE XLVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE BENGALURU
DATED: THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT: SMT. JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE
LLM
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1874/2021
COMPLAINANT :- State by Halsuru Gate Police
Station
(Represented By. Sr. APP)
ACCUSED PERSONS :- 1. Srikanth Reddy
S/o Bheema Reddy,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o No.7, Kardyal,
Talamadagi,
Humnagad Taluk,
Bidar District.
(Represented By. Sri. K.M advocate
for accused No.1)
2. Pandarinath
S/o Ambaji Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.22,
Channabasaveshwar Gurukul,
Kadyal, Bhalki Taluk,
Bidar.
(Represented By. Sri.V.S Advocate
for accused No.2)
2
C.C. No.1874/2021
DATE OF ARREST OF Not arrested
ACCUSED NO.1 & 2
NUMBER OF DAYS NIL
ACCUSED PERSONS IN
JUDICIAL CUSTODY
EVIDENCE COMMENCED 28.11.2022
ON
EVIDENCE CONCLUDED 14.09.2023
ON
DATE OF JUDGMENT 24.11.2025
ACCUSED ARE CHARGED U/s. 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471
FOR OFFENCES of Indian Penal Code
UPSHOT OF THE CASE Accused No.1 is convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 420, 465,
468 and 471 of IPC.
Accused No.2 is convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 420, 465,
466, 468 and 471 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
This judgment is the aftermath of the Final Report filed by the Police Inspector of Halsuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Section 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Concise details Of The Case Of Prosecution: -
The accused are brought to trial warranting that on 12.10.2017 the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy 3 C.C. No.1874/2021 submitted an online application before the CEO of District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, Rural District for the post of peon.
On 29.08.2018 the accused No.1 showed up for the interview to the said post. On the same day he produced his marks card of VII Standard to the CW.1- CEO of the court for verification. The CW.1- CEO of the court sent the said marks card of the accused No.1 for verification through CW.2 to the office of CW.3 - Public Education Department. The CW.3 department submitted a report stating that the marks card submitted by the accused No.1 is not genuine document. It is further contended that the accused No.2 by name Pandarinath has mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and prepared fake marks card of VII standard with an intention to illegally secure job for the accused No.1. It is further contended that the accused No.2 mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and created fake marks card and also created a public register. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 though knew that they have created fake marks card and forged the document, the accused No.1 produced the said marks card before the CW.1- CEO of the court as a genuine document with an intention of cheating and deceiving the 4 C.C. No.1874/2021 appointing authority of the court and therefore both the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
3. In response to court summons the accused No.1 appeared through his counsel Sri. K.M. and has been enlarged on bail. The accused No.2 appeared through his counsel Sri. V.S and has been enlarged on bail. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 through their counsel as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Heard before framing of Charges. Charges are framed under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code in English language and read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in Kannada language known to them. Having understood the same both the accused pleaded not guilty of alleged offences and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the charge sheet the prosecution has cited 7 witnesses. Out of these witnesses the prosecution has 5 C.C. No.1874/2021 examined 06 witness as PW-1 to PW.6 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 are marked as documentary evidence.
5. Statement of accused No.1 and 2 under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and incriminating evidence in the case of prosecution was read over to the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 and 2 have denied the incriminating evidence against them and submitted that they have defense evidence. The accused No.1 got examined as DW.1 and accused No.2 got examined as DW.2. No documentary evidence is produced by the accused No.1 and 2.
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP for the prosecution and learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2. Perused the entire materials on record.
7. On the basis of the materials on record the following points arise for the consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.10.2017 the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy submitted an online application before the CEO of District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, Rural District for the post of peon?6
C.C. No.1874/2021
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 29.08.2018 the accused No.1 showed up for the interview to the said post, On the same day he produced his marks card of VII Standard to the CW.1- CEO of the court for verification?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on CW.1- CEO of the court sent the said marks card for verification through CW.2 to the office of CW.3 - Public Education Department and the CW.3 department submitted a report affirming that the marks card submitted by the accused No.1 is not a genuine document?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 29.08.2018 the accused No.1 submitted fake marks card before the CW.1 for securing the job of peon by illegal means with an intention of cheating and thereby committed offense punishable u/sec. 420 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 by name Pandarinath has mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and prepared fake marks card of VII standard for the accused No.1 with an intention to illegally secure job for the accused No.1 and thereby both accused committed an offence punishable u/sec.465 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 by name Pandarinath has mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and prepared fake marks card of VII standard with an intention to illegally secure job for 7 C.C. No.1874/2021 the accused No.1 and also forged the public register and thereby both accused committed an offence punishable u/sec.466 of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 by name Pandarinath has mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and prepared fake marks card of VII standard with an intention to illegally secure job for the accused No.1 and also forged the public register and cheated the appointing authority of the court and thereby both accused committed an offence punishable u/sec.468 of IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 though knew that they have created fake marks card and forged the document, the accused No.1 produced the said marks card before the CW.1- CEO of the court as a genuine document with an intention to cheat the appointing authority of the court and thereby both accused committed an offence punishable u/sec.471 of IPC?
9. What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative Point No.2 :- In the Affirmative Point No.3 :- In the Affirmative Point No.4 :- In the Affirmative Point No.5 :- In the Affirmative Point No.6 :- Party in the Affirmative Point No.7 :- In the Affirmative 8 C.C. No.1874/2021 Point No.8 :- In the Affirmative Point No.9 :- As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2017 the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy submitted an online application before the CEO of District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, Rural District for the post of peon. On 29.08.2018 the accused No.1 appeared for the interview to the said post and on the same day he produced his VII standard marks card to the CW.1- CEO of the court for verification. The CW.1- CEO of the court sent the said marks card for verification through CW.2 to the office of CW.3 - Public Education Department. The CW.3 department submitted a report stating that the marks card submitted by the accused No.1 is not genuine document. It is further alleged that accused No.2 by name Pandarinath has mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and prepared fake marks card of VII standard with an intention to illegally secure job for the accused No.1. It is further alleged that the accused No.2 mentioned fake marks of accused No.1 in a white paper and created fake marks card 9 C.C. No.1874/2021 and also created a public register. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 though knew that they have created fake marks card and forged the document, the accused No.1 produced the said marks card before the CW.1- CEO of the court as a genuine document and with an intention to deceive the appointing authority of the court and with an intention of cheating and therefore the both the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
10. To bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution has examined 06 witness as PW-1 to PW.6 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 are marked.
11. The CW.1 by name Ramchandra is examined as PW.1. He has deposed that from June 2018 till today he working as incharge CAO in Bengaluru Rural Court. On 14.09.2017, a notification was issued by Principal District Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural for the 50 posts of peons online. The notification no. was ADM128/2017 dated: 14.09.2017. One Srikanth Reddy i.e., accused No.1 had also filed an online application for said post. On 18.08.2018, interview was called 10 C.C. No.1874/2021 for said post. The ADM branch scrutinized VII Standard marks card and ID Proof documents of accused No.1 and after ascertaining the same with online documents, accused No.1 was appointed as Peon in selection list. Thereafter the documents were forwarded to concerned Departments for verification. Thereafter on 18.03.2019, they received a report of DDPI Bidar stating that marks card of VII standard furnished by accused No.1 was not genuine and it was created document. Thereafter as per order of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court he has lodged present case against accused persons before the Hulsur Gate police station. He has forwarded true copies of concerned documents submitted by accused No.1 with his application along with copy of report of concerned DDPI along with First Information.
12. The CW.2 by name Dighambar is examined as PW-2. He has deposed that from 2013 to September 2022, he has served as Lecturer in DIAT, Bidar. As per order of DDPI, Bidar He visited Chennabasaveshwara Gurukul, Kardiyal School and verified the documents with regard to VII Standard marks card of accused No.1. On his visit to the said school he found 11 C.C. No.1874/2021 Administration Register but register of marks card was missing. Despite direction to trace out said marks card register the concerned Head Master did not secure and produce it before him. Thereafter on 16.02.2019, the concerned Head Master produced a new marks card register before him. He had been to verify marks card of accused No.1 for the year 2004-05. He has further deposed that during said period marks were given on the basis of grade. Further the said school had not maintained old marks card register and it was missing. In view of difference of only marks in Maths subject, he has endorsed his opinion as the marks card issued by school is not genuine. Hence he has given his opinion before concerned DDPI that the marks card of accused No.1 is not genuine. He identified his report submitted to the DDPI.
13. The CW.3 by name H.C. Chandrashekar is examined as PW.3 and he has deposed that from 2017 to September 2019 he has served as DDPI, Bidar, Kalburgi. On 01.12.2018, he received letter from Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural with a copy of VII standard marks card of accused No.1 with direction to ascertain genuineness of said 12 C.C. No.1874/2021 document. Hence he has deputed PW2 for verification of said marks card. On 20.02.2019, he submitted a verification report before him by enclosing some documents saying that the document furnished for verification was not genuine. Accordingly, he has submitted his report to Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural in this regard. He identified his letter and marks card copy sent for verification and etter addressed by him.
14. The CW.4 by name Venkatesh. N is examined as PW.4. He has deposed that from 2005 to 2020, he has served as ASI in Halsur Gate police station. On 02.04.2019, when he was on SHO duty of said Police Station, CW1 came and lodged First Information. He has registered the case in PS Cr. No. 64/19 and submitted FIR. He has handed over the case file to CW.5 for further investigation.
15. The CW.6 by name Santhosh. P.G is examined as PW.5. He has deposed that from 2018 November to 2020 November he worked as Police Inspector in Halsur Gate Police Station. He has taken the case file from CW5. On 20.06.2019 he has recorded the statement of CW2. After verifying the 13 C.C. No.1874/2021 materials on record, he has filed charge sheet against Accused to the court.
16. The CW.5 by name Mallikarjuna. M is examined as PW.6. He has deposed that from 11.03.2019 to 19.06.2019, he worked as PSI in Halsur Gate Police Station. On 03.04.2019, He received the file from CW4. On 26.04.2019, he issued notice to Head Master, Chennabasaveshwara Primary School, Bidar. On 06.05.2019, he has received documents from Head Master through post. The said documents are certified copy of the admission register extract, certified copy of the report, the certified copy of the marks register extract, the certified copy of the VII standard Transfer Certificate. On 03.06.2019, he had issued notice to CW2 through whatsapp. On 12.06.2019 CW2 appeared before him. Then he issued notice to him. In the meantime, he got transferred, therefore he has handed over the file to CW6. The CW.2 has given report stating that there is correction in the marks of Accused No.1 in respect of Mathematics subject as 99 marks by adding one more mark extra. On 30.04.2019, he had issued notice to accused No.1 to produce the document.
14
C.C. No.1874/2021
17. In support of his defence, the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy is examined as DW.1. He has deposed that he is the accused No.1 in this case. He scored 590 marks out of total of 600 marks in class VII standard. He has not cheated the Government. He has also submitted the mark sheet given by the school to the court when he joined the job.
18. The accused No.2 by name Pandarinath Pawer is examined as DW.2. He has deposed that on 20.09.2017 Srikanth Reddy's father Bhima Reddy came to his office and submitted an application. He said that there were 50 vacancies in the court and that he could apply and asked for the mark sheet of class VII. He called Shivakumar Kanaji, the clerk of his school and asked him to verify the original documents and give him the mark sheet. Then he went to the class. The said Shivakumar Kanaji checked the original documents and converted the grades into marks and sent it to him for signature. He checked it and signed it. He has checked the document that his clerk wrote down. He has not done anything wrong.
15
C.C. No.1874/2021
19. The prosecution has produced Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-24. Exh.P-1 is the complaint, Exh.P-2 is the true copy of online marks card, Exh.P-3 is the true copy of selection list, Exh.P-4 is the true copy of report by DDPI, Exh.P-5 is the true copy of VII marks card, Exh.P-6 is the true copy of Aadhar card of Accused No.1, Exh.P-7 is the true copy of notification, Exh.P-8 is the true copy of T.C of accused No.1, Exh.P-9 to Exh.P-11 are the true copy of consolidated marks card statements, Exh.P-12 is the report submitted to DDPI, Exh.P-13 is the copy of marks card, Exh.P-14 is the true copy of letter, Exh.P-15 is the FIR, Exh.P-16 is the notice, Exh.P-17 is the letter aid, Exh.P-18 is the register extract, Exh.P-19 is the marks card extract, Exh.P-20 is the grade marks card, Exh.P-21 is the VII standard TC, Exh.P-22 is the notice, Exh.P-23 is the reply to notice and Exh.P-24 is the notice issued to accused No.1.
20. Reasoning On Point No.1:- It is the pre-eminent principle of criminal law that every person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Hence, the entire burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. As a known fact, 16 C.C. No.1874/2021 the burden of bringing home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. In the background that the burden is on the prosecution let me ascertain if the prosecution is successful in proving the first three facts of the case i.e., if notification was published for filling up of posts of peon in the said court.
21. As per the case of prosecution, on 12.10.2017 the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy submitted an online application before the CEO of District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, Rural District for the post of peon. The Cw-1/Pw1 the CEO of the court has deposed that from June 2018 till today he working as incharge CAO in Bengaluru Rural Court. On 14.09.2017, a notification was issued by Principal District Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural for the 50 posts of peons online and the Notification No. ADM128/2017 dated 14.09.2017. In support of this assertion the PW-1 has identified the Ex.P.7. As per Ex.P.7 notification was called and published by the Bengaluru Rural Court calling for filling up of peon jobs through online. The Ex.P.7 document is not disputed by either accused. Thus on the basis of unrebutted evidence of PW1 and 17 C.C. No.1874/2021 the documentary evidence at Ex.P.7, it is established by the prosecution that the notification was issued and published by the Bengaluru Rural Court for the post of peon and online applications were called for. Thus the prosecution has proved that on 12.10.2017 the accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy submitted an online application before the CEO of District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, Rural District for the post of peon. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
22. Reasoning on point No.2:- It is again asserted by the prosecution that on 29.08.2018 the accused No 1 who had applied for the post of peon online showed up for the interview and on the same day he submitted his marks card of VII standard for verification before CEO/PW1. The PW1 Ramachandra has further deposed that on 18.08.2018, the accused No 1 showed up for the interview and produced his marks card of VII standard after he was selected for the post of peon in the said court. In the cross examination the PW1 has stated that the Hon'ble Principal District Judge had conducted the interview of such candidates. This aspect is not at all denied by both the accused . In the entire cross examination of 18 C.C. No.1874/2021 PW1 nothing is suggested by the learned counsel for the accused to the PW1 denying the fact that accused No.1 had showed up for the interview and submitted his VII standard marks card for verification after his selection to the said post. Thus the prosecution has proved the point No 2 and accordingly point No.2 is answered in Affirmative.
23. Reasoning on point No.3:- The prosecution has contended that the marks card which was submitted by the accused No.1 before the court after his selection was sent for verification to the department of CW3 and in turn the CW3 on the basis of report of CW2 submitted a report affirming that the marks card sent for verification of the accused No.1 Shrikanth Reddy is not a genuine document. So on the basis of this report issued by the CW3 department prosecution has taken this report as the stepping stone to bring the accused No.1 under the clutches of Law.
24. The prosecution has produced Ex.P.7 notification number ADM-128/17 which strengthens the assertion of the prosecution in support of their claim that they had notified and published about the vacancies of job in the court for the 19 C.C. No.1874/2021 post of peon and had called for online applications from the candidates.
25. The Ex.P.7 notification is neither denied nor challenged at any stage or point of time by the accused No.1 or accused No.2. The Ex P4 is the report dated 18.03.2019 given by the DDPI on the VII standard marks card of accused No.1 which was sent for verification. The Ex P4 is issued by Deputy Director of Public Instruction Department Bidar dated 18.03.2019. The Ex.P.4 is addressed to the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge Bengaluru City Civil Court Bengaluru. In the Ex.P.4 reference is shown as office letter No. ADM128/17 dated 01.12.2018, office letter dated 05.03.2019 and office phone call dated 18.03.2019. In the said report it is mentioned that the VII standard marks card xerox copy is not a genuine document. Thus from Ex P4 and the evidence of PW1 it is clearly established that on the basis of report submitted by the DDPI Bidar dated 18.03.2019, the criminal Law was set into motion against the accused No.1 as per Ex.P.1 lodged before the Halsur gate police station. Accordingly point No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
20
C.C. No.1874/2021
26. Reasoning on Point No.4:- In order to prove that the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC the prosecution has to necessarily establish that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 colluding had an fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of him applying for the job. The Ex.P.5 is the undisputed marks card submitted by the accused No.1 at the time of his interview in the court. In the Ex.P.5 it is mentioned has ಸದರಿ ಅಂಕಪಟ್ಟಿ ನೈಜತೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. In Ex.P.5 there is a seal of principal Govt Kalumudagi School Humnabad Bidar. The Ex.P.5 is not at all denied by the accused No.1 infact he claims that Ex.P.5 was issued to him by the accused No.2 and thus he admits the Ex.P.5. Though the learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW.1 about the marks card and his knowledge about the contents of Ex.P.5, the PW.1 who is just the first informant could not be the competent person to know the contents of marks card or about its genuinity. The role of the PW.1 is that as per directions given by the Hon'ble District Judge he had sent the marks card of the accused No.1 for the verification and on receipt of the report, he has lodged Ex.P.1 21 C.C. No.1874/2021 complaint. At the most the role of the PW.1 would be like a post or an inward clerk who has obeyed the orders of his higher authorities and lodged the complaint. Therefore if any discrepancy is found in the evidence of the PW.1 that would not come into the way of the evidence of prosecution.
27. Even the Ex.P.4 is neither challenged nor denied by the accused. As per Ex.P.6 the date of birth of accused No.1 is 30.05.1991. The Ex.P.8 is the transfer certificate of accused which shows his last date of attending the school as 10.04.2005. The Ex.P.9 is the register maintained by the Channabasaveshwara Gurukul Vasathi Primary School Kardiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar and Ex.P.10 is also the progress report register of the said school. The Ex.P.11 is the admission register which shows the name of accused No.1 Srikanth Reddy and his date of birth as 30.05.1991. On the basis of Ex.P.11 and on the basis of Ex.P.8 the prosecution has established that the accused No.1 was the student of Channabasaveshwara Gurukul Vasathi Primary School Kardiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar.
22
C.C. No.1874/2021
28. The person who prepared the Ex.P.4 report is one Dighambar that is CW.2/PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 shows that as per the order of DDPI Bidar, he has visited the Channabasaveshwara Gurukul Vasathi Primary School Kardiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar and verified the documents with regard to the VII standard marks of the accused No.1. He has also stated that upon his visit to the school he found that the marks register was missing and the concerned head master of the school did not secure the said Register and produced it before him and later on 16.02.2019 the concerned head master produced new marks card Register and on the verification of the said new marks card Register pertaining to the year 2004-05 he noticed that there was difference of one mark with consolidated marks card Register. He has further stated that the said marks card which is at Ex.P.5 was ought to have been issued in printed form but the same is issued in handwritten form which itself shows that there is one mark difference in maths subject and therefore he has made endorsement on Ex.P.5 stating that the said document Ex.P.5 is not a genuine document. The Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.13 are identified by the PW.2. The Ex.P.8 is the transfer certificate 23 C.C. No.1874/2021 Ex.P.9 is the register of progress report. Ex.P.10 is the register of progress report Ex.P.11 is the admission register Ex.P.12 is the letter submitted by Dighambar B K lecturer Diat Bidar to the DDPI dated 20.02.2019 and Ex.P.13 is the same as Ex.P.5. In the Ex.P.12, the PW.2 has made certain observations such as in the school there is register of grade in marks but the marks are not as per the grade and the marks are not mentioned in the register, the handwritten marks card was found and there is no printed marks card. In the marks card submitted by the candidate the marks for mathematics subject is shown as 98 but the same is verified with the consolidated register it was noticed that in 3 semesters the marks were 99.99, 99 and there is difference of one mark. In the said report it is also mentioned that on 21.01.2019 when he visited the said school he did not find the consolidated marks card register and he had directed the case worker to search the said consolidated register but on 16.02.2019 he had given a new consolidated marks register. On the Ex.P.12 it is further mentioned that as per the document the accused No.1 Srikanth Reddy has studied VI standard in the year 2004-05 and VII standard in the year 2005-06 but on 24 C.C. No.1874/2021 verification it was found that the marks entered in the register and the marks card does not tally with each other and therefore the said marks card is not a genuine document.
29. The Ex P14 is dated 06.06.2019 issued by the DDPI Bidar. In the Ex.P.14 the DDPI Bidar had directed the head master of Channabasveshwara Gurukula Residential Primary School Karadiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar to provide the document and information required for the case. In the Ex.P.14 it is stated that the CEO of District And Session Court Bengaluru Rural on 22.03.2019 had lodged a complaint about the marks card submitted by the candidate. It is further mentioned that the VII standard marks card attendance register, admission register and other documents were supposed to be submitted to the office with the 04.06.2019 but the same is not submitted and therefore the Head master of the above said school was directed to produce the above stated documents before the Police Inspector of Halsur Gate police station failing which necessary action will be initiated.
30. The entire case of the prosecution is based on Ex.P.23. The Ex.P.23 is issued by the Lecturer District 25 C.C. No.1874/2021 Education and Training Center Diat Bidar addressed to theP Police Inspector Halasur Gate dated 11.06.2019. In the Ex.P.23 he has stated that Srikanth Reddy S/o Bhimha Reddy is studied in Channabasveshwara Gurukula Residential Primary School Karadiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar and on 21.01.2019 he visited the said school. The admission register was available in the school but when he visited the school the consolidated marks register was not available. He enquired with the case worker and the case worker told him that he could not found the consolidated marks register. He gave 20 days time for the case worker and the headmaster of the school to search for the said register. It is further mentioned in Ex.P.23 that on 16.06.2019 a new consolidated register was prepared and thus he directed them to search for the old consolidated marks register but the case worker told him that the old consolidated marks register is not available. He has further mentioned in Ex.P.23 that he verified the said register and reported it to the DDPI Bidar. The Ex.P.23 and the Ex.P.12 are the same documents, whatever is mentioned in the Ex.P.23 is again reduced in Ex.P.12.
26
C.C. No.1874/2021
31. The PW3 DDPI Bidar has deposed that upon receipt of letter from the Prl. District Judge with copy of VII standard marks card of the accused No.1 for verification and he deputed PW.2 for verification of said marks card, received report and he submitted his report to the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge. He identified Ex.P.14. Thus on the basis of Ex.P.14 it is clear that the CW.3 had directed the PW.2 Dighambar to verify the genuineness of of marks card of accused No.1 and another candidate. In the cross-examination he admits that on the basis of report of PW.2, he sent the report to the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge. He has further stated that in the year 2004-05 there was printed marks card.
32. The investigating officer PW.6 has stated that he had received the documents from Head master through post which are the certified copies of admission register. He identified Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.23. He identified the Ex.P.20 that is the grade marks card. On perusal of Ex.P.20 shows that the said document is the progress report of Srikanth Reddy of VII standard for the year 2004-05. In the Ex.P.20 for the first semester at in A division it is mentioned that the accused No.1 27 C.C. No.1874/2021 had scored A grade for first language, B+ grade for second language, B+ grade for third language, A Grade for mathematics and A grade for Science and A grade for Social Science, Total Grade as A. In the second trimester A grade for first language, B+ grade for second language, A grade for third language, A Grade for mathematics and A grade for Science and A grade for Social Science, Total Grade of A.
33. In third Trimester A grade for first language, A grade for second language, A grade for third language, A Grade for mathematics and A grade for Science and A grade for Social Science, Total Grade of A.
34. In page number one of the Ex.P.20 the percentage for the grades is mentioned for A section for A grade 75% to 100% marks, B+ 60% to 74%, in C grade 50% to 59%, in C+ 30% to 49% and C below 29%. So as per Ex.P.20 there is no Grade as A+ or B. In the Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 at serial number 46 the name of accused No.1 is shown and is total % is shown as 98 as per Ex.P.10 but in Ex.P.9 as at serial Number 46 the % is shown as 98.33 and the same is mentioned as 98.33%. 28
C.C. No.1874/2021
35. The Ex.P.5 and the Ex.P.23 are not denied by the accused No.1 and 2. Moreover as per say of the accused No.1 the Ex.P.5 is said to be issued by the accused No.2 to the accused No.1 and thus the accused No.1 do not know the contents of the Ex.P.5 and says that he do not know about the marks shown in the ExP.5. The only defense of the accused No.1 and the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 is that as online application were called for, he had marks card in grade wise and it was not possible for him to submit the marks online in Grade wise and therefore he approached the school seeking marks card and the accused No.2 issued him the Ex.P.5 marks card. If for the sake of discussion it is considered that the accused No.1 was in need of marks card in digits or numbers for then he ought to have submitted an application before the concerned school seeking for the conversion of the grade wise marks into the digits wise marks. But no such document is produced by the accused No.1 to show that he had submitted any application before the concerned school seeking for conversion of the grade wise marks into the digits wise marks.
29
C.C. No.1874/2021
36. Now in the absence of any application by the accused No.1 seeking conversion of the grade wise marks into the digits wise marks, the question arises is how the accused No.2 issued him the Ex.P.5 marks card. Here comes the main role of the accused No.2 into picture. The accused No.2 is the Headmaster of the Channabasveshwara Gurukula Residential Primary School Karadiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar. He has not disputed that he is the Headmaster of the Channabasveshwara Gurukula Residential Primary School Karadiyal Taluk Balki District Bidar at relevant point of time.
37. The act done by the accused No.1 in this case can very well be made out from his evidence. The accused No.2 got examined as DW.2 and deposed in his examination-in-Chief that on 20.09.2017 the father of the accused No.1 had come to their office and had submitted an application. The father of the accused No.1 told him that there are 50 vacant posts in the court and thus had asked for issuing a marks card of VII Standard to apply for the job. Therefore he called his clerk by name Shivakumar Kanaji and asked him to give the marks card after verifying the original register. The said Shivakumar 30 C.C. No.1874/2021 Kanagi verified the original register and converted the grade marks into digits and gave it to him, he verified the same and signed it and gave it. He identified Ex.P.5 and deposed that he has issued the Ex.P.5 after verifying the original documents. He has further deposed that his clerk had given him the document, he verified signed and gave it to him and thus he is at no fault.
38. The learned Sr.APP for the prosecution has cross- examined DW.2 at length. In the cross examination dated 21.08.2025 the DW.2 admits that Srikanth Reddy had studied in his school in the year 2004-2005, he has stated that the Srikanth Reddy after passing in the exams had applied for marks card on 20.09.2017. He states that the application was submitted by Srikanth Reddy and his father had accompanied him. In the said application he has sought for marks card of VII standard. He admits that the said application is in their school and that he had no objections or no problem to produce the same to the court. He admits the Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 and stated that the said documents are issued by their school. He admits that the Ex.P.13 is Handwritten. He admits that if any persons 31 C.C. No.1874/2021 asks them for documents then they verify the register and issue the documents. He admits that the Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 are issued from their school. He admits that the Ex.P.23 is given by the DDPI. He admits that hand written marks card is not to be issued to the students infact the computerized marks card is to be issued to the students. He specifically admits that the students who pass the examination are issued with the marks card on the day of results itself. He further admits that they had also given marks card to the accused No.1 on the day of results itself. He admits that the accused No.1 in his application has not mentioned that as he has lost his marks card thus he sought for issuance of new marks card. He has further stated that he has issued an endorsement to the accused No.1 stating that as already marks card was given, therefore once again marks card cannot be issued. He has denied the suggestion that as the original register was not available, he had asked for 20 days time to search for the register. He has further stated that he do not remember that the DDPI had given him 20 days time to search for the register and submit it. He had denied that without searching for the old original register he has created a new register, he has stated 32 C.C. No.1874/2021 that he do not know on basis of what Order he has converted the Grades in Digits and issued the marks card to the accused No.1, he do not remember in which year said such Order was made. He admits that he has no objections to produce the copy of such Order. But the accused No.2 has not produced any such order copy before this Court.
39. The accused No.1 is examined as DW.1. He in his examination in chief has deposed that in VII std he had scored 590 marks for 600. He identified Ex.P.19 he had not cheated the Government, he had produced the marks card which was issued to him from his school. In the cross examination he has stated that in Kandagudu Government School he has studied upto VI standard, he studied his VII standard in Gurukula school and completed in 2004. He has stated that when the application for the post of peon was called, he has submitted his study certificate along with his application, he had submitted online and further voluntarily states that he had also submitted his marks card along with the application, he has submitted his online application online, he has submitted the printed marks card which was issued by his school 33 C.C. No.1874/2021 headmaster, the marks card was issued by headmaster by name Pandarinath. In the cross-examination he admits that along with the application he had not submitted his I standard to VI standard marks card, he has stated that he has no problem to produce the said document before the court, he has further stated that he had scored 598 marks out of 600 in VII Standard, in his further cross examination he has stated that he do not know that there is difference in the marks card at Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.19, he admits that in Ex.P.5 marks for Maths subject is shown as 99 and in Ex.P.19 marks scored for Maths subject is shown as 98. He admits that in Ex.P.5 marks for Science subject is shown as 99 and in Ex.P.19 marks scored for science is shown as 98. He specifically admits that he had submitted his documents after his selection for the post of peon, he admits that the CW.3 after verifying the Ex.P.5 with the original document has reported that the Ex.P.5 is not a genuine document, accused No.1 denies suggestion that he along with the accused No.2 has created fake marks card and got the government job. He has further denied and stated that he do not know that in Ex.P.19 his marks for maths subject is shows as 98 and his marks for science subject is shown as 99. 34
C.C. No.1874/2021 From the oral evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 and the admission given by both the accused in their cross examination itself shows that both the accused have admitted the documents produced by the prosecution and the documents produced by the prosecution are neither denied nor challenged by the accused No.1 and 2. The only contention of the accused No.1 is that he had produced the marks card issued by the accused No.2 to the court after his selection for the job. As per the prosecution documents notification for the post of peon as per Ex.P.7 was notified on 14.09.2017 and last date for submitting the application was 12.10.2017. The specific contention of the accused No.1 is that at the time of filling of the online application itself the accused No.1 has obtained his marks card from the accused No.2 and submitted it. Taking into consideration the dates of all the events, notification was dated 14.09.2017, last date for submission of application online was 12.10.2017. On careful perusal of the Ex.P.7 it shows that in last but one page of said document the other instructions for the candidates are mentioned, the candidates at the time of appearing for the interview and verification of documents have to submit the copy of online application, fee receipt, VII 35 C.C. No.1874/2021 standard marks card, document to testify the date of birth and other such necessary documents. So as per the undisputed document Ex.P.7 it is clear that the the document such as the VII Standard marks card was to be submitted at the time of interview and not before that. In this regard learned counsel for the accused has argued that as per the selection list the cut off marks was 98.33% and in the year 2017 when the notification was done, the accused No.1 had filled his marks as 98.33% which clearly shows that he had actually obtained 98.33% and there was no any occasion or necessity for the accused No.1 to create the marks card. This argument has put this court under confusion about the cut off marks and also the marks said to be obtained by the accused No.1 as 98.33%. This argument of the counsel for the accused No.1 falls short of evidence and any support. Application as per Ex.P.7 was called on 14.09.2017, last date for submission of application online was 12.10.2017. As per Ex.P.2 the online application was submitted by accused No.1 on 10.10.2017 and in Ex.P.2 he has shown his marks obtained as 98.33 % and marks obtained as 590 out of 600 and year of passing is 2005. As per Ex.P.3 the list of candidates called for interview were 36 C.C. No.1874/2021 announced and marks obtained in the interview was 9.833. So from Ex.P.3 it makes clear that the cut off marks or the marks scored by the accused No.1 is not 98.33 % but it is 9.833. So at any point of time it cannot be accepted that the cut off marks and the marks mentioned by the accused No.1 in his online application are one and the same. The specific defense of the accused No.1 is that on the basis of Ex.P.5 only he had entered his marks in the Ex.P.2. No doubt as per Ex.P.5 percentage is shown as 98.33 % and marks is shown as 590 out of 600. It is pertinent to note here that the Ex.P.5 does not bears the date on which it was issued by the accused No.2.
40. If for the sake of discussion it is considered that the Ex.P.2 is filled by the accused No.1 on the basis of entries done in Ex.P.5 then several questions arises such as-
a. When did the accused No.1 applied for getting the grade wise marks card to be converted into digits ?
b. To whom did he apply ?
c. What was the mode of application?
d. Had he produced his grade wise marks card with his application to the school of accused No.2? e. What was the grades obtained by the accused No.1 in his original marks card?
37
C.C. No.1874/2021 f. Where is the original grade marks card of the accused No.1?
41. The accused No.2 has also contended that on the basis of application submitted by the accused No.1 he has issued Ex.P.5. If such being the case again some questions arises--
a. When did the accused No.1 submitted the application was it submitted by accused No.1 or his father? b. Is the application available in the school ? if yes why the same is withheld and not produced before the court?
c. What was the mode of application?
d. What was the orders which authorized the accused No.1 to issue Ex.P.5 in numbers wise?
e. Did he take any permission form his higher authorities prior to issuance of Ex.P.5?
f. On what basis Ex.P.5 was issued and how the marks shown the Ex.P.5 is calculated by the accused No.2? g. Where is the original marks card of the accused No.1 and if the accused No.2 has done any enquiry prior to issuance of Ex.P.5 to the accused No.1. ?
h. Why no explanation is given about the mismatch of marks in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.19 and why there is a mismatch?
i. Why the clears Shivakumar is not examined before the court in support of their defense?
38
C.C. No.1874/2021 j. Where is the original marks card consolidated Register of marks?
42. On going through the entire evidence placed by the prosecution and by both the accused the above questions which have gone unanswered by the accused No.1 and 2 would be answered as under:-
Accused No.1- a. No materials are placed by the accused No.1 to prove that he had applied for the marks card to be given in digit form before the accused No.2.
b. No document is produced to prove before whom he applied for the marks card.
c. No materials are placed to prove the mode of application.
d. No materials to prove that he had annexed his grade wise marks card along with his application.
e. No documents to prove about the grades that was scored by the accused No.1 in his original marks card of VII standard and Ex.P.5 are one and the same.
f. The original marks card is not produced.
43. On going through the entire evidence placed by the prosecution and by both the accused the above questions 39 C.C. No.1874/2021 which have gone unanswered by the accused No.1 and 2 would be answered as under:-
a. No documents to show that when did the accused No.1 submitted the application and not clear if the accused No.1 had submitted application or his father had submitted in his application.
b. No answers or materials are placed on record to prove if the application is still available in the office of the school and no reasons are given for withholding of said important document by the accused No 2.
c. No materials to prove what was the mode through which application was submitted. d. No copy of Orders is produced that authorized the accused No.2 to issue Ex.P.5 in digits form.
e. No materials placed on record to prove that prior to issuance of Ex.P.5 the accused No.2 had taken any permission from his higher authority.
f. No materials placed on record to prove that on what basis Ex.P.5 was issued and on what basis the marks shown in Ex.P.5 are calculated from the grade wise.
g. No materials placed on record to prove where is the original marks card of the accused No.1 and no materials to prove that any enquiry was done.
h. No materials placed on record to provide explanation about the mismatch of marks in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.19 and no reasons to explain why there is a mismatch.
i. The clerk Shivakumar is not examined by the accused and no efforts are made by accused to atleast summon the said Shivakaumar who is said to have prepared the Ex.P.5.40
C.C. No.1874/2021 j. No explanation is provided by the accused No.2 to show where is the consolidated marks register and what about the original marks register.
44. The only defence of the accused No.1 is that he had obtained the Ex.P.5 at the time of him submitting the online applications for the post of peon in the year 2017 itself. To prove these defense the accused has not produced any probable defense such as documents to prove as to when he obtained the Ex.P.5. As the Ex.P.5 does not bears the date of its issuance the contention of the accused No.1 that the Ex.P.5 was issued by the accused No.2 prior to him applying for the post of peon is not a probable defense. Moreover as per the Ex.P.7 it is very clear that only after the selection of candidates their documents were asked to be submitted for the verification. The Ex.P.5 is admitted by both the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.2 has not explained on what basis he had issued the marks card in digit for and has not produced any such documentary evidence to prove that the Ex.P.5 is issued by him on the basis of the original marks register and that the contents of Ex.P.5 is true and correct. 41
C.C. No.1874/2021
45. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 argued that there was no common intention for the accused No.1 and 2 in creating the Ex.P.5 and thus the accused No.1 cannot be held guilty for any of the alleged offences.
46. It is pertinent to note here that the accused No.1 has benefited from the Ex.P.5 and that accused No.2 had issued the Ex.P.5 for the benefit of the accused No.1 so as to enable him to secure a job in the court for the post of peon. The fact that the accused No.1 secured a job on the basis of the said marks card is not disputed and it is not disputed that the accused No.1 is still working as a peon in the Court. The issuance of the Ex.P.5 by the accused No.2 without having any authority and without having any permission for doing so or without the availability of the original register is suffice to hold that the accused No.2 has created the Ex.P.5 to help the accused No.1 to secure a job.
47. The intention of both the accused can be made out from their act of creating the digit wise marks card in handwritten form which made the accused No.1 to secure a job. So from the cogent and clinching documentary evidence 42 C.C. No.1874/2021 the prosecution has successfully established that the accused No.2 issued the Ex.P.5 without any basis or without any specific order from his higher authorities or without any original register. The mismatch of the marks shown in the Ex.P.5 is suffice to hold that the accused No.2 created the Ex.P.5 for the accused No.1. There is nothing on record placed by the accused No.1 to prove that he had scored 590 marks out of 600 marks in VII Standard. In the examination in chief the DW.1 has stated that he has scored 590 marks out of 600 and during the course of his cross-examination by the learned Sr.APP for the prosecution the DW.1 has stated that he has scored 598 marks for 600. The admission given by the DW.2 in his cross-examination that they issue the original marks card to the students on the day of results itself shows that the accused No.1 was also issued with the original marks card when he passed the VII standard. The said original marks card would definitely disclose the correct marks obtained by the accused No.1 either in grade wise of in digits form. The accused No.1 would be the best competent person who would definitely know the number of marks scored by him in VII marks card. The DW.1 has not given the reason for non 43 C.C. No.1874/2021 production of his original marks card issued in the year 2005- 2006 when he passed the VII standard. He has not explained if he has the original grade wise marks card or that he has lost the same. The accused No.1 remained silent about his original marks card. When the DW.1 was issued with the original marks card at the time of him passing the VII standard then definitely it would have been in the custody of the accused No.1 and he ought to have produced the said document before this court which would have proved him innocent but the accused No.1 remains silent about the said documents and his silence is suffice to hold that intentionally he has withheld the production of his original marks card which was issued to him at the time of him passing the VII standard. Non production of the said document itself warrants this court to draw an adverse inference against the accused No.1 and his innocence. Mere saying that he has scored 598 out of 600 marks is not sufficient to hold that the accused is innocent.
48. Thus as discussed above the entire documentary evidence of the prosecution and the admission given by the DW.1 and DW.2 is sufficient to hold that the accused No.1 and 44 C.C. No.1874/2021 2 intentionally created the Ex.P.5 and the accused No.1 produced the same before his appointing authority i.e., the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru and secured a job. The conduct of the accused No.1 in not producing the said original marks card before this court shows that he is not innocent and that he had secured the job by submitting a created document with the help of accused No.2.
49. Now let me ascertain if the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
Sec-420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property 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.
Ingredients of section 420 of IPC are as under:
Deception: The accused must have deceived the victim, either by making a false or misleading representation or by concealing something they were bound to disclose. Dishonest Inducement: The deception must have fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person to deliver any property, or to consent to the retention of any property, or to do or omit to do something.
Dishonest Intention: The dishonest or fraudulent intention must have been present at the time the false representation was made and the inducement was given.45
C.C. No.1874/2021 Delivery of Property or Valuable Security: The victim must have delivered property, a valuable security, or something capable of being converted into a valuable security as a result of the inducement.
Sec. 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.
Ingredients of section 465 of IPC are as under:
Making of a false document: This can include creating a document from scratch or altering an existing one without lawful authority. The act can also involve impersonation or receiving a document signed by someone who lacks the mental capacity to understand it.
Intent to deceive or cause harm: The act of creating the false document must be done with the specific intent to deceive or cause a loss, or to defraud or injure someone. The document is made with knowledge of its falsity: The person creating the false document must know that it is false.
Sec. 466. Forgery of record of court or of public register. Whoever forges a document or electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document or electronic record purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of section 466 of IPC are as under:
The ingredients for an offense under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are forging a document that purports to be a record of a court of justice, a public servant's register (like birth, marriage, etc.), a public servant's certificate in their official capacity, an authority to institute/defend a suit, or a power of attorney. The forgery must be of one of these specific, protected documents to constitute the offense.
Sec.468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be 46 C.C. No.1874/2021 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of section 468 of IPC are as under: Making of a false document or electronic record: The accused must have fabricated or altered a document or electronic record dishonestly or fraudulently to misrepresent the truth.
Intent to cheat:
The false document must have been created with the specific purpose of deceiving another party.
Intention for use in cheating:
The accused must have intended for the forged document to be used for the purpose of cheating.
Sec. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.-- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 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.
Ingredients of section 471 of IPC are as under:
Forged document: The document or electronic record in question must be a forged one.
Fraudulent or dishonest use: The accused must have used the forged document fraudulently or dishonestly. Use as genuine: The forged document must have been used as if it were a genuine one.
Knowledge or reason to believe: The accused must know or have reason to believe that the document they are using is a forgery.
Voluntary act: The use of the forged document must be done voluntarily.
50. Now let me ascertain if the prosecution has satisfied with ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. The accused No.1 and 2 with a dishonest intention fraudulently and dishonestly 47 C.C. No.1874/2021 created the Ex.P.5 document and produced it before the Court and secured a job which shows that the accused No.1 and 2 intentionally with an intention of cheating dishonestly produced the created marks card before the Hon'ble Principal District and Session Judge and secured job. Thus the prosecution has established the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused No.1 and 2 in cheating his appointing authority. Hence the accused No. 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly I answer Point No.4 in Affirmative.
51. Reasoning On Point No.5:- The concept of Forgery has a vast scope. Section 463 of IPC defines Forgery- Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
52. So to attract the penal provision under section 465 of IPC the prosecution has to first prove that a false document 48 C.C. No.1874/2021 was created with an intention to commit fraud. In this case the accused No.2 in active collusion with the accused No.1 created the fake marks card so as to show that the accused No.1 has secured 590 marks out of 600 and the accused No.1 with an intention though knew that it is not his original marks card fraudulently presented it before his appointing authority court such forged and created document. The accused No.1 has received the forged marks card from the accused No.2 and produced it before the court and thus both the accused are guilty of offense punishable under Section 465 of IPC. Accordingly point No.5 is answered in Affirmative.
53. Reasoning On Point No.6:- In this case so to attract the penal provision under section 466 of IPC the prosecution has to first prove that a register kept by a public servant or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity is forged.
54. In this case the accused No.2 is the Head master of the Govt school and is a public servant. He being the custodian of the school registers has created a school register so as to suit with the entries made in Ex.P.5 and issued the said 49 C.C. No.1874/2021 document to the accused No 1 to produce it before the court and secure a job. Thus the accused No.2 has created school registers, created Ex.P.5 and committed an offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC. Thus the point No 6 is answered partly in Affirmative holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 has committed the offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC. Accused No.1 is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC. Accordingly I answer Point No.6 in the party Affirmative.
55. Reasoning On Point No.7:- Section 468 of IPC provides punishment for Making of a false document, fabricated or altered a document or dishonestly or fraudulently to misrepresent the truth and had Intention to cheat created the false document with the specific purpose of deceiving another party.
56. The accused No.2 created the Ex.P.5 for the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 benefited from the said created document and with an intention of cheating the Court in securing his job created a false document. Thus as per above 50 C.C. No.1874/2021 discussions the accused No.2 created the document and accused No.1 with an intention to cheat the appointing authority produced the same and secured a job and thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offense punishable under Section 468 of IPC. Thus the point No.7 is answered in Affirmative.
57. Reasoning On Point No.8:- The prosecution has also alleged that the accused No. 2 created the document Ex.P.5 for the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 though had the knowledge that the said Ex.P.5 is not a genuine document and though he knew that he had not scored such marks as shown in the Ex.P.5 has submitted the said document for his appointment to the post of peon before the Court of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge with an intention of cheating and securing the job. Thus both the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. Accordingly this court answers Point No.8 in Affirmative.
51
C.C. No.1874/2021
58. Thus on the basis of clinching evidence the prosecution has successfully established that the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 468 and Section 471 of IPC and also proved that the accused No.2 has committed an offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 466, 468 and Section 471 of IPC.
59. Point No.9:- For the aforesaid reasons, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
1973, accused No.1 by name Srikanth Reddy is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and Section 471 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
1973, accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and Section 471 of Indian Penal Code.52
C.C. No.1874/2021 The Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 and their surety stand canceled.
To hear regarding Sentence.
(Dictated by me on computer, typed by the stenographer, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of November 2025) (JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE) XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE In this case, the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.420, 465, 468 and Section 471 of IPC. Accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.420, 465, 466, 468 and Section 471 of IPC.
2. Heard the accused No.1 and 2, their counsel and the Ld. Public Prosecutor regarding sentence.
3. The accused No.1 submits that his father aged about 69 years and mother is aged about 45 years. He is married about 7 months back. He is the only son to his parents and except him there is no one to take care of his parents and his wife.
4. The accused No.2 submits that his elder sister is hospitalized, mother is aged about 90 years. He is the only son to his parents and his elder daughter is studying 2nd PUC and 53 C.C. No.1874/2021 son is studying 10th standard. He is working in private institution and has less salary and there is no one look at his parent and his wife, children.
5. Learned Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 have submitted that, the accused No.1 is young and prays to take lenient view. Further, it submitted that, the accused No.1 and 2 are regular before the Court through out proceedings and have co-operated with the court proceedings and not violated conditions of bail order. Further, it is submitted the offences u/Sec.420 of IPC are compoundable in nature and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act may be applicable. Accordingly, prayed for lenient view in favour of the accused No.1 and 2 in the matter of awarding sentence.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that, the offences against the accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Court has to consider the nature of the case and gravity of the offence punishable u/Sec.420, 465, 466, 468 and Section 471 of IPC committed by the accused and also its effect on the society. The loss sustained eligible candidate for the post of peon in the court is to be considered. Accordingly, prayed for convicting the accused by imposing maximum sentence and fine permissible under law.
7. In the matter of imposing the sentence, Court has to hear the accused on sentence, consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, gravity of the offence, the purpose 54 C.C. No.1874/2021 of punishment being imposed, effect of the offence committed on the society and facts and circumstances of the case under which the offence took place.
8. In the present case the accused No.1 dishonestly got a job in the and fraudulently cheated the appointing authority. The act of the accused is having effect on the public at large and the actual eligible candidates of the said job.
9. The provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the present case on hand since it is a intentional offence which is done on the basis of documents. Hence, this Court declines to release the accused No.1 and 2under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. Section 420 of IPC provides for punishment for cheating and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also liable to pay fine.
11. Section 465 of IPC provides punishable 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.
12. Section 466 of IPC provides Whoever forges a document or electronic record purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an 55 C.C. No.1874/2021 authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Section 468 of IPC provides for punishment for Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 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.
14. Section 471 of IPC provides for punishment Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
15. The Court has to consider the mitigating factors which are in favour of the accused and aggravating circumstances. There is no material placed to show that the accused is having any criminal antecedents. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused, it is noticed that, the accused is having aged old mother. He has appeared before the Court to face the trial of this case on every dates for long years. However, the submission made by the Ld. Public Prosecutor is also to be taken into consideration. Hence, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of 56 C.C. No.1874/2021 the offences, its effect on the society, the purpose of the punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, this Court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.57
C.C. No.1874/2021 The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Acting 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 466 of IPC.
The sentences ordered shall run concurrently.
Office to supply of the free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated by me on computer, typed by the stenographer, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of November 2025) (JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE) XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU 58 C.C. No.1874/2021 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Ramchandra
PW.2 Dighambar
PW.3 H.C. Chandrashekar
PW.4 B.G. Krishna Murthy
PW.5 Santhosh. P.G
PW.6 Mallikarjuna. M
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 True copy of online marks card
Ex.P.3 True copy of selection list
Ex.P.4 True copy of report by DDPI
Ex.P.5 True copy of VII marks card
Ex.P.6 True copy of Aadhar card of accused No.1
Ex.P.7 True copy of notification
Ex.P.8 True copy of T.C of accused No.1
Ex.P.9 - 11 True copy of consolidated marks card
statements
Ex.P.12 Report submitted to DDPI
Ex.P.13 Copy of marks card
Ex.P.14 True copy of letter
Ex.P.15 FIR
Ex.P.16 Notice
Ex.P.17 Letter aid
59
C.C. No.1874/2021
Ex.P.18 Register extract
Ex.P.19 Marks card extract
Ex.P.20 Grade marks card
Ex.P.21 VII standard TC
Ex.P.22 Notice
Ex.P.23 Reply to notice
Ex.P.24 Notice issued to accused No.1
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:-
DW.1 Srikanth Reddy
DW.2 Pandarinath
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
- NIL -
(JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE)
XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU