1. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, under Ss.419, 471, 472 and 420 r/w S.511 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different periods and also pay fine, under the aforesaid sections. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal filed was dismissed by the Sessions Court with an observation regarding sentence under S.472 IPC. Assailing the said Judgments, this criminal revision petition has been filed.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was fact, on 27.04.2007, at 11.30 a.m., the petitioner was found driving a Ambassador Car bearing registration No.MEX-42, with Karnataka Government nameplates having the Government emblem and stickers, on Siddaiah Puranik Road, within the limits of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station. On suspicion, when CW-1/PW-2 stopped the car and enquired, the petitioner was found possessing seals and other documents and when questioned, he pretended to be an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ad produced an identification card and other documents and made to believe that he is a public servant. Upon enquiry, it was learnt from the department of Commercial Taxes, that the petitioner is not working in the department and thereby, dishonestly cheated both he public and the Government. CW-1/PW-2 lodged a complaint/Ex.P4. CW-10/PW-5 registered a case and sent the FIR/Ex.P22 to the Court and took up the investigation, which was later on taken over by CW-11/PW-6. CW-11 laid the charge sheet.

3. The accused denied the charge. During trial, the prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined PWs.1 to 6, through whom Exs.P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 18 was marked. The accused was examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the incriminating evidence and has not led any defence evidence. Learned Trial Judge, taking into consideration the record of the case and the rival contentions, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the charged offences. Hence, a Judgment of conviction was passed and the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and also pay fine.

4. The accused challenged the said Judgment by filing Crl.A.No.771/2009. Three contentions urged for consideration by the accused, viz., (a) the Trial Court erred in not properly assessing the evidence available on record; (b) the Trial Court erred in concluding that the ingredients of Ss.419, 471, 472, 473 and 420 r/w 511 IPC are made out and; (c) the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, upon consideration, having been negated and the appeal having been dismissed, this criminal revision petition has been filed.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao learned advocate, raised the same contentions. He further contended that the prosecution has not proved the alleged acts of ‘forgery’, since, ‘the seals’ were not sent to an expert for furnishing of opinion and also that the offence under S.467 IPC having not been proved, S.472 or 473 IPC is not attracted. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of RAM JAS VS. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1811, he contended that the finding of guilt recorded is illegal. Alternatively, by placing reliance on an order dated 21.03.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.882/2009 and connected cases, (Sri K.V. Harish & others Vs. State of Karnataka), he submitted that the substantive sentences ordered in the matter being harsh, a lenient view may be taken.

6. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have correctly analyzed the factual position and in view of the credible evidence brought on record by way of examination of PWs.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and the exhibited documents and the marked MOs.1 to 18, there is no scope for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the