The main legal point established is that lack of authorization from the complainant and a delay in lodging the complaint are not sufficient grounds for acquittal if the accused is found guilty based on evidence of forgery and cheating.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 2215 of 1993, by which, the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused for the offence under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477, 511, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. That on 16.2.1990 in order to get the post of driver in S.T. Corporation the respondent accused submitted standard VII passed certificate though he did not prosecuting the study. The respondent accused did not study in the Pay-Centre School of Porbandar. Inspite of this fact, he submitted the forged School Leaving Certificate. The opponent accused knowing that it was a forged document and with the intention to use the same as genuine one committed the offence. That one Nagjibhai Nanjibhai - Establishment Supervisor, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Junagadh filed a private complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class against the original accused for the offence under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477, 511, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That the said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was numbered as M Case No. 85 of 1992. After investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer having found prima facie case against the accused filed the charge sheet in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against both the accused for the offence under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477, 511, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that during the pendency of the trial, original accused No. 2 died and therefore, the trial qua him came to be ordered to be abated. Therefore, the original accused No. 1 only came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the aforesaid offences.

2.1. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses:

Sr.No.	Name of witness	Exh.No.
1	Nagibhai Nanjibhai	37
2	Manilal Parshottambhai	44
3	Gunvantrai Maiyaram Achraya	48
4	Bhimjibhai Popatbhai	49

2.2. Trough the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidence:

Sr.No.	Documentry evidence	Exh.No.
1	Copy of advertisement for the future vacancy to the post of Driver in the Junagadh S.T. Department	38
2	Application of original accused no.1 post of the Driver	39
3	School living certificate of accused	40
4	Letter return to the principal of Taluka school No.1 Porbandar  with respect to scrutiny of School leaving certificate of original accused by the S.T. corporation	41
5	Reply tendered by principal, Taluka  School No.1 Porbandar	42
6	Original complaint filed by the complainant before the court	43

2.3. After submitting the closing purshis, further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused denied having committed any offence and even denied the evidence collected against him and has stated that false case has been filed against him.

2.4. At the conclusion of the trial and though on appreciation of evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has specifically given the findings that the prosecution/complainant has been successful in proving that the school leaving certificate produced by the accused along with his application form for the post of driver is forged one, solely on the ground that the original complainant who lodged t