The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, emphasizing that enhancement of sentences requires strong justification, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This enhancement appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) against order of sentence dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case no. 7619 of 2006, wherein, the respondents - original accused no. 3 and 4 along with other accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). At the end of the trial, the learned trial Court found the respondents guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and they have been sentenced as under:

2. Facts and circumstances, giving rise to this appeal are that, 4 accused namely Kadar Kasambhai Odiya, Mohmed Mahetab Alam Saiyed, Munni @ Kamar Begam Saiyed and Ajaykumar Ramlal Pasi were prosecuted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. According to the case of prosecution, in the month of May- 2005, the accused no.2 Mohmed Mahetab was arrested for the offences punishable under the provisions of Immoral Trafic Act as the Ahmedabad DCB Branch registered an FIR against him and others. Thereafter, he was detained under the Preventive Detention Law and sent to Rajkot Central Jail. The request for tiffin service made to Rajkot Jail through accused no.1 - Kadar Odiya was allowed. In September, 2005, this Court quashed the detention order, but, due to offence registered under the Immoral Trafic Act, the accused no.2 was in Rajkot Jail. It is further case of prosecution that, the accused conspired and in furtherance of conspiracy, by forging the signature of the Judge of Metro Court, Court No.11, a bogus surety bond as well as release order had been created with a common object to release the accused no.2 from Rajkot Jail. The accused no.1, by sealed envelope, handed over the alleged fake orders to the Rajkot Jail Authority. The Metro Court No.11, Ahmedabad learnt that, by bogus and false security bond, the accused no.2 was released by the Jail Authority. The Court intimated to the Rajkot Jail Authority. It is in these background facts, the FIR came to be lodged against 4 persons, inter alia, alleging that, they created forged signature and false document of the Court No.11, Ahmedabad and produced it before the Jail Authority, Rajkot, whereby, they committed the offence of forgery, making false documents and used it as genuine for the purpose of getting bail of accused no.1. Pursuant to the said FIR, the investigation had been proceeded. During the investigation, it emerges that, the accused no.3 who was closely associated with the accused no.2 and it is his behest, contacted the advocate – accused no.4 and in connivance of each other, created a false document and by forging the signature of Presiding Officer of the Court, presented before the Jail Authority and obtained the favourable order. The natural handwriting of accused no.4 were obtained and as per the report of Handwriting Expert, the disputed writings and signatures and standard writings and signatures were written by one and same person.The investigating agency found suficient material for the