IMPORTANT POINT
In cases where in course of same transaction an offence for which a complaint u/s 195 Cr. PC to the Court was necessary, it is not possible to split up and hold prosecution of accused for offences not mentioned in Section 195 Cr. P. C.

JUDGMENT

R.L. Khurana, J. - The State has come up in appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 20.9.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi setting side the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi vide judgment dated 20/ 21. 9 .1988 and whereby the respondent was acquitted of offences under Sections 181 and 420, Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. On the basis of the report dated 10.10.1985 made by the Superintendent of Police, CID/Crime, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to the District Superintendent of Police, Mandi, case under Sections 420/468, Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Police Station Sadar, Mandi vide FIR No. 2317/1985 on 11.10.1985. It was averred that the respondent ASI Hirda Ram who is not a Middle pass, had given an affidavit to the effect that he was Middle pass and on the basis of such affidavit with regard to his educational qualification got promotion. On the basis of reliable information having been received in this regard, a discreet inquiry was made and it was found that in the year 1978 when the respondent was posted at BSL Unit Sundemagar, District Mandi, he on 3.10.78 had sworn a flase affidavit before the Magistrate 1st Class Mandi to the effect that he had passed Middle Standard examination from Govt. Vijay High School, Mandi in the year 1956 and was a student of Class nine at the time of his leaving the said school. It was also deposed in the affidavit that while the respondent was posted at Chango check post in Kinnaur District in the year 1960-61 he has submitted his Middle Standard examination certificate to the then Superintendent of Police, Border Security Force while appearing in B-1 test. A perusal of the character roll of the respondent revealed that the word "Middle" had been written by someone and such entry with regard to the respondent having passed Middle Class has not been attested by any authority. It was thus averred that by submitting a false affidavit, the respondent cheated his superior Officer and by doing so he got an opportunity to undergo Intermediate Course at Police Training College, Phillaur.

3. After the necessary investigation, on a case having been found against the respondent for the offences under Sections 420/468 and 181, Indian Penal Code, the respondent was arrested, challaned and sent up for trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi.

4. The respondent was charged to stand trial for the offences under Sections 181,420 and 468 Indian penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. The Prosecution, in support of its case, in order to bring home the offences against the respondent, examined as many as 20 witnesses. The case of the respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is that he had passed the Middle class and that he had sworn the affidavit correctly. Three witnesses were, examined by the respondent in his defence apart from himself appearing as his own witness as DW 4.

6. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that a case for the offences under Sections 181 and 420, Indian Penal Code stood proved against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. The respondent was accordingly convicted of the said offences and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 181, Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. In so far as the offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the respondent was acquitted of the said offence since the same was held to be have not been proved against him.

7. The respondent challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Magistrate by way of an appeal before the Sessions