Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 19 November, 2013
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 56/2010
Mohan Lal
Vs.
State of M.P.
As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri P.R. Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu
Pratap Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Brijendra Mishra, Advocate for the Objector.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, PL for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
( /11/2013)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/12/09 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj District Rewa in S.T. No. 219/08 whereby being convicted u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs. 1000/- each on four counts with default stipulations.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that appellant has been appointed on the post of driver in the year 1985 in M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd. Silpara (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the company'). One complaint was received by employer against the appellant as to the effect that appellant entered into the service on the basis of forged marksheet of 8th Class. The similar complaint was made by Ram Naresh (PW-7) brother of appellant. On receiving the aforesaid 2 complaint R.K. Pandey (PW-1), Officer of the company had issued a show cause notice to appellant on which appellant filed a second copy of marksheet on 26/07/02 however, the material difference was found in the marksheet attached to the service book of appellant and the second copy of marksheet produced by appellant on 26/07/02. Thereafter, again a show cause notice has been issued to the appellant for his explanation and in reply, he stated that false and fabricated marksheet found in his service record, same was not filed by him. Further he pleaded ignorance that when and who attached aforesaid marksheet in his service record. Side by side, Ramnaresh (PW-7), brother of appellant has filed the repeat complaints (Exhibit P-24, 25, 26) to the police. Police has registered the offence against the appellant u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the appellant. After due investigation, appellant has been charge sheeted before the JMFC, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge u/ s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the appellant.
3. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. He further pleaded that due to the family dispute his brother Ramnaresh (PW-7) has lodged a false report against him. He adduced B.P. Chaturvedi (DW-1) in his defence.
4. On appreciation of evidence trial Court recorded the conviction and sentence as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted 3 that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective therefore, prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the Objector as well as State has supported the judgment and finding recorded by the Court below.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. I.K. Pandey (PW-8), Executive Engineer has stated that appellant has filed the second copy of marksheet (Ex.P.-1) on 26/06/06 alongwith the covering memo (Ex.P-3). It is further stated that on comparison of Ex.P.-1 with the certified copy of marksheet attached with the service record of appellant he found material difference in both the marksheets therefore, he issued a show cause notice (Ex.P-8) to appellant on which appellant has filed his reply (Ex.P-9). On careful scrutiny of aforesaid documents like Ex.P-1 and marksheet which is attached in service record of appellant which is duly seized from the office from possession of Executive Engineer in presence of independent witnesses Raheesuddin and Ramakant Shukl, he found material difference that in marksheet filed on service recrod appellant has passed his 8th Class from Pre Middle School Hakariya and in the marksheet later on produced by appellant same examination said to have been passed from Shashkiya Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kramank No. 1 Rewa. However, similar numbers were shown in both the marksheets. Though, appellant wrote in his 4 explanation that he is unable to explain that who filed the certified copy of marksheet in his service record but this explanation is devoid of merits and same cannot be accepted because the document in service record certainly could have been filed by appellant/employee himself.
8. When aforesaid fact considered with the statement of Ram Naresh (PW-7) who specifically stated that once his brother (appellant) called him for the purpose getting service. He went to appellant's house with his testimonial and he gave all the documents to his brother but when he returned to his village appellant has not returned his marksheet of 8th Class and stated that same has been misplaced somewhere. Thereafter, when inquiry was started against appellant, he again came to him and told to file an affidavit in his favour but this witness refused the same. He further stated that he sent reports to police (Ex.P-24, P-25, P-26) against the appellant. Though it is admitted by this witness that he had not filed any complaint to anyone for about 24 years but immediately he explained that when appellant came to him and told that this appellant should write that appellant is not working in company on the basis of marksheet of this witness therefore, this fact came in his knowledge in the year 2006. Considering the aforesaid explanation the fact of belated FIR is very well explained on record. Further, I.K. Pandey (PW-8) categorically stated that when appellant had filed his explanation on 26/06/06 alongwith the second copy of marksheet (Ex.P-1) same was totally 5 different to the copy of marksheet which is already attached to the service record of appellant therefore, he issued further show cause notice (Ex.P-8) to him thereafter, appellant filed his reply (Ex.P-9). After considering the averment of Ex.P-8 and P-9 trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that explanation of the appellant is not truthful because appellant was the only person who filed the marksheet at the time of joining the service therefore, his explanation was not liable to be accepted.
9. Further, on careful scrutiny of Janki Sihote (PW-3) and Ramvilash Saket (PW-9) the employee of Joint Director Education District Rewa and Principal of Govt. High School Hakaria it reveals that the second copy of marksheet (Ex.P-1) is also a forged and fabricated document. Considering the statements of aforesaid witnesses it is established on record that appellant never appeared in the examination from the Pre Middle School, Hakariya in the year 1977-78 which shows that marksheet (Ex.P-2) which is attached in the service record of appellant is a forged document. Further appellant tried to show that he had passed the 8th class examination from Shashkiya Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kramank No. 1 Rewa but this fact is also not true and same was found false after considering the correspondence took place between the Office of Joint Director and District Education Officer by Janki Sihote (PW-3). This witness has been extensively cross examined but nothing brought in her cross examination to disbelieve her. She is a govt. servant 6 and she has no enmity with the appellant therefore, trial Court has not committed any illegality in believing the aforesaid witness.
10. During the course of argument it was highlighted by defence counsel that witness Ram Naresh (PW-7) has admitted in his cross examination that a major contradiction has been brought on record from his statement (Ex.D-1) recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C therefore, prosecution has not proved his case for cheating to the company by filing the forged document (marksheet) and trial Court has not appreciated the aforesaid evidence properly therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.
11. I have perused the statements of Naveen Kumar Upadhyay (PW-1) alongwith Ram Naresh (PW-7), they are the persons who were not posted at Company, Silpara at the time of appointment of appellant therefore, they could not able to state that appellant entered into service on the basis of forged document (Ex.P-2). Since sole case is rest on documentary evidence wherein it is proved on record that marksheet (Ex.P-2) filed by appellant at the time of entering into the service is a forged document because appellant never passed his 8th class examination from Pre Middle School, Hakariya. Further the second copy of marksheet is also found forged because he never appeared in the examiantion from Shashkiya Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kramank No. 1 Rewa and this fact finds support from correspondence between Company and Joint Director (Ex.P14, P-15). Ex.P-16 also appears to be a 7 doubtful document and trial Court rightly disbelieved the aforesaid document. In these circumstances, it is amply proved on record that at the time of joining the service of the company appellant fraudulently induces authority of the company to issue appointment order on the basis of forged document (marksheet) Ex.P-2 and thereby appointing authority has been deceived to do the aforesaid act of appointment which he would not do if he was not so deceived by the appellant by filing the forged document. Under such circumstances, offence u/s 420 is proved on record. It is also on record that appellant made alteration in the Ex.P-2 and wrote his name in the marksheet of other person thereby, he made a false document and committed forgery. It is further proved on record that he committed the aforesaid forgery for cheating the authority of company to issue the appointment order on the post of driver in his favour. Further, it was very well in the knowledge of appellant and he has reason to believe that document (Ex.P-2) is a forged document he fraudulently used the aforesaid document as genuine therefore, offence u/s 471 of IPC is also proved on record.
12. However, forged document cannot be said to be valuable security and it was not any receipt for delivery of movable or valuable security therefore, offence u/s 467 has not been proved on record. The trial Court committed the illegality in recording the conviction u/s 467 of IPC against the appellant and same is liable to be set aside however, trial Court has not committed any illegality in 8 recording the conviction u/s 420, 468, 471 of IPC.
13. As far as sentence is concerned appellant was a low paid employee and sole bread earner of his family. He was having a valid license with him and noting is on record to show that he was not able to drive the vehicle. Under aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if jail sentence of appellant is reduced from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year (on three counts) with the fine amount as awarded by the trial Court.
14. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded u/s 467 of IPC is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted to the said offence. However, the conviction recorded u/s 420, 468, 471 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of appellant is reduced from RI for 3 years to RI for 1 year (on three counts) with the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- each on three counts with default stipulations and jail sentence will run concurrently as awarded by the trial Court.
15. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining part of jail sentence on or before 22nd of January, 2014.
16. Record of the court below be sent back with the copy of this judgment for information and compliance (G.S.Solanki) Judge navin