Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: false marksheet in State vs Tejwant Singh Gill on 26 April, 2022Matching Fragments
Arguments
14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Accordingly, conviction of accused was prayed.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts and the case of the prosecution lacunae at many places. Defence has argued that minimum eligibility criteria was added in the year 2002 and since accused was having prior education and degree, the eligibility criteria was not applicable on him, thus there was no basis for him to file any false marksheet. Defence also argued that accused had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the eligibility criteria being applied for him to get permanent registration with the Medical Council of India. The defence further argued that his petition was disposed off on 22.04.2013 with directions to MCI to consider his representation and it was then that letter dated 14.02.2013 was written by FIR No. 90 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 8 of 14 State v. Tejwant Singh Gill the MCI to the SHO Sector 23, Dwarka for registration of FIR. The foremost ground on merits by the defence is that never was the original 10+2 marksheet was placed on record or even sent to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna for verification and rather only photocopy was produced. The defence also argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the application form was submitted by the accused before the MCI and same was never sent to the FSL for comparison with any admitted handwriting of the accused. The defence has thus pleaded acquittal on merits.
17. Now considering the merits of the case and established law, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge has to prove that the accused applied to the Medical Council of India for registration and in that process submitted fake/ false marksheet of 10+2. Prosecution also has to prove that accused had knowledge that the marksheet was not genuine, yet he used it as genuine and the said usage was with dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Medical Council of India. It is no point in contention that FIR No. 90 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 9 of 14 State v. Tejwant Singh Gill Registration certificate be it provisional or permanent is a 'property' for the purposes of Section 420 Indian Penal Code [AIR 1969 SC 40]. It is also not a bone of contention that provisional certificate was delivered to accused and he even had applied for the permanent certificate after completing his mandatory internship post-provisional registration.
26. From the discussion above, the accused is proved to have fraudulently induced the MCI to deliver his provisional registration, which if not for the FIR No. 90 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 13 of 14 State v. Tejwant Singh Gill deception of fake marksheet, the MCI would not have delivered. The accused has thus cheated the MCI by furnishing fake marksheet. Further, because of the said cheating, the MCI having been deceived has delivered the marksheet to the accused. Also, the accused had knowledge that the marksheet was false and yet he fraudulently and with dishonest intention used the same as genuine. It is true that not much effort was made to trace the person who forged the marksheet in question for the accused, however the same does not absolve the accused of his actions.
Conclusions
27. Thus the accused somehow had in his possession a false marksheet which he knew was not genuine. Accused used this fake marksheet to fill his form to the Medical Council of India and thereby got Provisional Registration Certificate. The accused has thus cheated and dishonestly induced the Medical Council of India (an artificial person) so deceived to delivery property i.e. Provisional Registration Certificate. All the ingredients of Section 420 of the Code are thus fulfilled. Similarly since accused knew or atleast had reason to believe that the marksheet was forged, yet he fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine and thus the ingredients of Section 471 of the Code are also fulfilled.