SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 2028

2000(8) Supreme 455
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Tulsibhai Jivabhai Changani -Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1104 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3775 of 2000)
Decided on 12-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh and Jaman K. Bhanderi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Anu Sawhney, Advocates.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 198, 420 and 471-False statement in declaration-Conviction for offence-Production of false mark sheet-Gaining admission in polytechnic using it as true certificate-Mark sheet not proved to be forged by accused-He knew that mark sheet was false and used it as true certificate-Lower Courts rightly convicted accused. (Paras 3 and 4)

       

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is against an Order 29th August, 2000.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

On 9th September, 1996 the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 198, 420 and 471 IPC on the ground that he knew that a Marksheet produced by him was false and still he used that Marksheet for gaining admission to Polytechnic Course in 1986. The trial Court whilst convicting the Appellant has noted that it was not proved that the Marksheet had been forged by the Appellant. The trial Court, however, held that there was a possibility that the Appellant had either himself or through somebody else got the Marksheet amended. The trial Court found that the Appellant was aware that this was not the correct Marksheet and had still used it to gain admission. The trial Court, therefore, convicted the Appellant as set out above. The Sessions Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant. A Revision was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court by the impugned judgment refused to interfere. It dismissed the Revision. Hence this Appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. In our view it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant used the duplicate certificate with changes, as a true certificate knowing it to be false in material particular and thereby got admission. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the conviction. However looking to the nature of the offence and the fact that the Appellant s past and present records has been good and the fact that he has already lost his career and is now married we reduce the sentence to that already under gone. The Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

(C.R.) Order accordingly.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top