Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. PATIL, J.
Sri. Jagadeesha B.K. S/o Kenchaveerappa B.E. – Petitioner
Versus
State by Koppa Police – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 815 of 2015
Decided On : 15-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. H.P. Leeladhar.
For the Respondent: Sri. Thejesh P.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Sections 101 to 110 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Post of Hindi Teacher - Order of conviction - Whether it is a genuine document or not - Whether signatures found were that of Principal of College or not - Whether accused knew or had reason to believe document in question to be forged has to be adjudicated on basis of materials and finding recorded in that regard is essentially factual - Whether he has played any such fraud and obtained his subsequent job in said institution - Court have heard learned counsel for petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State - Factual matrix of case of prosecution is that by producing fake marks card accused got selected for post of Hindi Teacher - BEO lodged a complaint - Police after investigation laid charge-sheet - Thereafter learned Magistrate secured presence of accused heard him regarding charge and framed charge - Same was read over and explained to accused - Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried - As such trial was fixed - In order to establish its case prosecution got examined witnesses and got marked documents - Thereafter accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code Neither he has led any evidence nor he got marked any documents on his behalf - After hearing both parties and on considering entire material on record trial Court convicted accused - Aggrieved by same accused-petitioner herein preferred appeal before appellate Court which came to be dismissed by confirming judgment and order of trial Court – Held, Court have carefully and cautiously gone through judgments and orders of trial Court as well as appellate Court - After discussing in detail Courts below have come to a right conclusion - When there are concurrent findings recorded by Courts below based upon evidence and if they are not suffering from any perversity then under such circumstances this Court cannot interfere with such orders - Said proposition of law has also been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case - In light of said discussion contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was not having any knowledge and it was not within his knowledge as to who issued said certificate cannot be acceptable - Even petitioner-accused was fully aware of fact that he has failed in examination at time when he produced Ex.P16 - Under such circumstances it cannot be even presumed that he was not having any knowledge or he had no reason to believe that said document was forged one - Without his knowledge such document cannot be made use of - It is not in dispute that when candidates come to know about their results through result sheet they go through same and thereafter they obtain their respective marks cards - Prosecution is having an initial burden to prove case but when once it has been proved by prosecution then onus shifts upon accused to rebut same by cogent and acceptable evidence - In this behalf if provisions of Sections 101 to 110 of Indian Evidence Act are perused it can be held that petitioner-accused has not rebutted and proved his burden and when he fails to do so it is said that case of prosecution stands proved - Now-a-days producing fake marks cards and other documents for getting Degrees or appointments is increasing - If such fraud and misrepresentation are encouraged then under such circumstances educational system itself is going to be toppled and every one lose faith in system itself - Especially meritorious students will be deprived of their future because of this intermediate persons - When such forgery and misrepresentation are not noticed by concerned authority said persons will complete their service by depriving meritorious students - Now this country is progressing with high attitude and high qualifications - But this type of persons will be black spots to said system and they will be bringing down reputation and dignity of not only institution but country as a whole - Whenever such type of cases were found and brought before Court must take them seriously and they should be dealt with iron hands no sympathy or mercy should be shown - If such persons are dealt by Courts properly it should send signal to such type of persons that they should not venture for such frauds and they will not be easily taken - In that light court of considered opinion that conviction and sentence passed by trial Court are liable to be confirmed by observing that concerned institution/authority where petitioner-accused is employed subsequently has to take appropriate steps and to see whether he has played any such fraud and obtained his subsequent job in said institution - Court have carefully and cautiously gone through judgments and orders passed by both Courts below - Courts below after considering material and entire evidence on record have come to a right conclusion and rightly convicted petitioner-accused - Impugned judgments and orders are neither perverse nor illegal - Hence they are confirmed – Petition stands dismissed
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 374/2013, dated 14.7.2015 by confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa in C.C. No. 525/2008, dated 9.10.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that by producing fake marks card, the accused got selected for the post of Hindi Teacher. The BEO of Koppa lodged a complaint. Police after investigation, laid the charge-sheet. Thereafter the learned Magistrate secured the presence of the accused, heard him regarding charge and framed the charge. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such the trial was fixed.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution, got examined 9 witnesses and got marked 21 documents. Thereafter, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Neither he has led any evidence nor he got marked any documents on his behalf. After hearing both the parties and on considering the entire material on record, the trial Court convicted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused-petitioner herein preferred the appeal before the appellate Court, which came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of the trial Court.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is a delay in filing the complaint. After joining as Hindi Teacher, the accused-petitioner completed the probationary period and on the basis of the said marks card, he joined B.Ed. course and completed the same. Even then there were no complaints. The document in question was not referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain as to whether it is a genuine document or not and whether the signatures found were that of the Principal of the College or not. Neither the Principal of the college who has issued the said certificate nor the Nodal Officer of the Board were examined. It is his further submission that the accused was not having any knowledge of creation of the said document. It was not within his knowledge as to who actually prepared the said document. But he obtained the said document from the college authority. It is his further submission that it is the prosecution which has to prove that the petitioner-accused knew that before the said marks card was a fabricated document and by knowing fully well about the said aspect, he used the said document. In the absence of the same, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences alleged against him. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decisions in the case of Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1342 in the case of Govindareddy M.R. vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1063/2010, disposed of on 26.7.2017, and in the case of Labhshanker Maganlal Shukla vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1012. It is his further submission that the Director has also not been examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Accused has produced the marks card at Ex.P16 received from the college where he completed his PUC. Even one R. Govardhan who has signed the document, has been examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court ought not to have compared Exs.P16 and P19 and erroneously by relying upon such documents has convicted the accused. It is his further submission that at the time of joining the service and at the time of interview the documents are going to be verified with reference to authenticity, but subsequently some foul play has been played to remove the petitioner from the service. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to establish its case with cogent, relia
