Jharkhand High Court
Maharuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand .....Opposite ... on 2 December, 2022
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2015
Maharuddin Ansari, s/o Kiyamat Ansari, r/o Village Rangamati, PO
Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .....Opposite Party
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP
---------------
nd Order No.16/ Dated: 2 December 2022 The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 19th December 2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2010 by which the appellate Court has affirmed his conviction and sentenced of RI for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).
2. In GR Case No. 1177 of 2004, the petitioner faced the trial on the charge framed under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
3. In the aforesaid trial, which commenced after a charge-sheet was filed on completion of investigation in Nirsa PS Case No. 67 of 2004, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. In order to prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution has laid documentary evidence by producing a copy of the written report, letters dated 22nd August 2003 and 15th May 2003, copy of the certificate of matriculation examination 2002 of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar and other documents.
4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner submitted a matriculation certificate which on verification from the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar was found a forged document.
5. The petitioner has produced the matriculation certificate to procure appointment on the post of Panchyat Sevak on which post he was appointed on 12th September 2001. During verification of the certificates, a communication was made to the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in respect of Mandal Murmu, Chunni Lal Hembram and the petitioner. A verification 2 Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2015 report vide letter dated 28th August 2002 was received from the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in which it was stated that the certificate produced by the petitioner has been found to be issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the name of Maharuddin Ansari and his date of birth was 6 th October 1964. Whereas, the xerox copy of the certificate produced by the petitioner recorded name of the examinee Maharuddin Mian with date of birth on 15 th July 1958. Later on, the petitioner submitted another certificate bearing his name Maharuddin Ansari with date of birth 6 th October 1964 and a report dated 22nd August 2003 on these two certificates were received from the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar wherein it was stated that the petitioner had passed matriculation twice in two different names and with two different dates of birth.
6. The head clerk in the District Panchayati Raj Office who was examined as PW2 has brought the report by Hindi Vidyapith on record as Exhibit-2. This witness has also identified photo copy of the letter dated 15 th May 2003 issued by District Panchayati Raj Office and photo copy of the certificate of the accused which were marked as X and X/1 for identification.
7. The Deputy Registrar, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar who tendered evidence as PW4 has deposed in the Court about the certificates produced by the petitioner in the name of Maharuddin Mian and Maharuddin Ansari, both of which carry two different dates of birth. He has also proved the report contained in the letter dated 22nd August 2003 which was marked as exhibit 2/3.
8. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the materials brought on record has held as under:
"8....As such to make a false document is the essential ingredient of forgery. In order to prove the charges against the accused prosecution has to prove that the accused had prepared a forged document. It appears from the prosecution story that the allegation against the accused is that he had prepared a forged document and used the same for getting a job. However it appears that the said alleged forged document which is the basis of the prosecution case has not been brought on record. Moreover it appears from the deposition of P.W.4, the registrar of Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh that two certificates had been issued by the institution, one in the name of Maharudin Ansari in which the date of birth had been mentioned as 06.10.1964 and the second one in the name of Maharuddin Mian in which the date 3 Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2015 of birth had been mentioned as 15.07.1958. Hence at best it can be said that the accused had procured two certificates from the institution and he had furnished false information but both the certificates were genuine. Accordingly in absence of the document which was purportedly forged by the accused, the accused can not be held guilty for committing an offence u/s 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
the accused is also facing trial for committing an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. In support of its case prosecution managed to examine as many as six witnesses, out of whom PW.5 was declared hostile and PW.6 has stated that for some times the accused worked as Panchayat Sewak in village but subsequently, he was removed. As such the witness has not thrown any light on the prosecution story. Out of the remaining witnesses, P.W.4 is the deputy registrar of Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh and he had stated that pursuant to the letter of the administration the certificate of the accused was verified and it was found that two certificates had been issued by the institution, one name of Maharudin Ansari in which the date of birth had been mentioned as 06.10.1964 and the second one in the name of Maharuddin Mian in which the date of birth has been mentioned as 15.07.1958. The other witnesses of the prosecution have categorically stated that the accused was appointed as panchayat sewak and at the time of his appointment he had given the copy of his educational certificate which when verified the above facts come to light. As such it becomes clear that the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that the accused at the time of employment had furnished the photocopy of an educational certificate which when verified initially was not found to be genuine. Subsequently, another certificate had been furnished by the accused and when both the certificates were verified by Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh, it came to light that the certificate which was in the name of Maharuddin Ansari was with date of birth is 06.10.1964 whereas, the certificate which was in the name Of Maharuddin Mian, his date of birth was shown as 15.07.1958. An argument has been advanced by learned counsel of the defence that Maharuddin Mian and Maharuddin Ansari are the same persons and as per the rules of the Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh, a candidate can appear twice in examination for better result. In this case also the accused had taken the benefit of the aforesaid rule for his improvement, as such it can not be said that he has committed any offence. Even if the plea of the defence is accepted and it is admitted that Maharuddin Mian and Maharuddin Ansari are the same person and both the certificates belong to him but it appears that in the certificates two different date of births has been mentioned and those are 06.10.1964 and 15.07.1958. From the deposition of P.W.4 it appears that the witness has stated that at the time of filling of form of examination, the examinee has to fill up his name and his date of birth. As such if it is 4 Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2015 presumed that the alleged two certificates are of the accused then it becomes clear that the accused has mentioned two different dates in his application form and as such has tried to misguide Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh and subsequently to the administration for procuring the job. By his conduct the accused has deceived Hindi Vidyapith Deogarh and also had deceived the Panchayatiraj Department and managed to get the job of Panchayat sewak and as such has committed cheating. Hence it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused has cheated the Panchayatiraj Department. However there is nothing on record to show that the accused had dishonestly induced delivery of property. As such the accused can not be held guilty for committing the offence u/s 420 I.P.C. But the materials available on record are sufficient to held the accused guilty for committing and offence punishable u/s 417 I.P.C."
9. As noticed above, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to RI for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 417 IPC.
10. The appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2010 has held as under:
"17. In this way from the above referred discussions held regarding the oral as well as documentary evidences, I easily draw inference that the appellant had obtained the job of Panchayat Sevak by producing his educational credential issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar which was not found correct and to rectify it he produced another certificate of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar which on verification revealed that he had appeared in the secondary examination of said institute with two different names One Maharuddin Mian and one Mahruddin Ansari and two dates of birth viz. 06-10- 1964 and 15-07-1958. As the prosecution has not produced these certificates produced by the appellant before the District Administration, Dhanbad the appellant was rightly not held guilty for the offences of section 467/468/471 of the I.P.C by the learned lower court. Further more for want of the aforesaid documents he could not be convicted U/s 420 of the IPC as well by the learned lower court. As regard his punishment for cheating u/s 417 of the I.P.C, the evidence available on the record clearly indicates the guilty intention of the appellant for seeking job of Panchyat Sevak which he had ultimately got with the help of fake documents and it is guilty intention which is the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating which has duly been proved by the prosecution in this present case. Thus I find no occasion to inference with the findings held by the lower court of holding the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 417 of the I.P.C and however, the sentence part is modified by replacing the sentence of three months R.I in default of non payment 5 Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2015 of fine by simple imprisonment of three months."
11. The plea urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was a typographical error committed by the issuing authority on account of which name and date of birth of the petitioner were wrongly recorded cannot be accepted. The discrepancies in the certificates produced by the petitioner have been noticed by both the Courts and it is really relevant to take note of the fact that certificates issued in 1999 and 2002 both are for the supplementary examinations. The petitioner in course of trial has failed to offer any plausible explanation for the discrepancies found in both the certificates. In this context, it needs to be indicated that during the trial the petitioner has set up a plea that in the office someone has interpolated his name and the date of birth.
12. Mr. Ankur Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the certificates produced by the petitioner were genuine and as the other matriculation certificate which was issued in the name of Maharuddin Mian records his birth on 15th July 1958, the petitioner could not have secured any benefit of a longer service tenure by producing that certificate.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case and keeping in mind the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction, in exercise of which except in a very limited kind of cases the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter.
14. In this regard the judgment in "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC 452 may usefully be noticed:
"5..... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, 6 Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2015 unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. ..."
15. The above being the position in law, having examine the materials on record, I find no ground to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2015 is dismissed.
16. In the supplementary affidavit dated 11th March 2015 by Md. Firoj Ansari, son of Mahruddin Ansari, it is stated that the petitioner was released on bail on 27th February 2015 after depositing fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- in GR No. 1177 of 2004. He has also brought on record a copy of the deposit receipt of Rs.2,000/- dated 27th February 2015.
17. The release of the petitioner appears to be completely illegal.
18. The first direction this Court is issuing is that the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith. Next, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad shall make an inquiry into the matter how the petitioner on deposit of fine amount of Rs.2,000/- has been released on bail. He shall send a report to this Court in this regard which shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the High Court of Jharkhand.
19. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad through 'FAX'.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) RKM