The onus of proof that the accused brought forth a forged document with a view to cheating rested with the prosecution, and the vital link in the chain of circumstances against the accused was essential to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 420/468/471 of IPC by learned J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri in G.R. Case No. 19 of 1994 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for 3 years for the offence under Section 468 IPC, R.I. for a period of 3 years under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more and for a period of 6 months under Section 471 of IPC with all the sentences directed to run concurrently vide judgment dated 16.11.1998. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed by learned Sessions Judge in C.R.A. No. 39 of 1998 as per judgment passed on 24.06.2000.

Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that a complaint was received by the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar from some persons that the petitioner had utilized forged H.S.C. Board Certificate and Secondary Teachers Training Pass Certificate to get employment as a teacher. The matter being enquired, it was found that neither the H.S.C. Board Certificate nor the Secondary Teachers Training Certificate had been issued by the respective Board/Institutes. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before Raikia Police Station by the District Inspector of Schools, Phulbani on 22.01.1994. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforementioned offences and he was put to trial.

The accused took the plea of denial.

3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. After scanning the evidence in detail, the trial court held that the alleged offences were clearly proved inasmuch as it was reflected in the service book of the petitioner that he had entered into service stating that he had passed the HSC and CT examinations. It was also found that the petitioner had used the certificates in question knowing the same to be forged and had thus used the same dishonestly and cheated his appointing authorities by inducing them to believe the said certificates to be true and genuine thereby inducing them to appoint him as a teacher. In appeal, learned lower appellate court also independently scanned the oral and documentary evidence on record but found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were considered and negatived as the lower appellate court also found that the petitioner had used the forged certificates for getting appointment as Assistant Teacher in 1980.

Challenging both the judgments as above, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant revision.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgments, Mr. Mund contends that the basic ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved and therefore, the finding of guilt is liable to be interfered with. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Mund contends that there is no evidence on record to show that the certificates, which were marked as Exhibits-15 and 16, were produced by the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no evidence that the said documents were forged documents. According to Mr. Mund, unless the prosecution is able to clearly prove that the petitioner had forged the documents in question and had produced them before the appointing authority at the relevant time and thereby utilized the same to get appointment, he cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences. It is further contended that both the courts below have ignored this vital aspect, i.e., absence of proof that Exhibits-15 and 16 were produced by the petitioner before the appointing authority at the relevant time. Moreover the manner of proof of certain documents like the Tabulation Register