The court upheld the conviction for forgery and considered the petitioner's long years of service and lack of prior misconduct in ordering his release on probation.

Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the judgment dated 18.8.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which his appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 17.11.1987 was dismissed.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner while posted as Incharge Malkhana, Amritsar prepared T.A. Bill from 2.8.1984 to 27.9.1984 for attending the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran and had appended the Court Attendance Certificates for 2.8.1984, 13.8.1984, 17.8.1984, 21.8.198, 18.9.1984, 20.9.1984, 24.9.1984 and 27.9.1984. An anonymous complaint was received by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar to the effect that the TA bill prepared by the petitioner was false. Before payment of the bill could be disbursed, Shri Jaidev Suman, DSP, Head Quarters was deputed to enquire into the matter. On inquiry, he found that the Court Attendance Certificates attached with the TA bill dated 11.8.1984, 17.8.1984 and 24.9.1984 were correct but those dated 2.8.1984, 18.9.1984, 20.9.1984, 21.9.1984 and 27.9.1984 were forged. The reports on these bills were also wrong and the cases in which the certificates were issued were not fixed on the dates on which the certificates were forged. These bills had been get prepared from Baldev Raj No. 1631 for submitting to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police and on the basis of this inquiry, a formal FIR was recorded. On completion of the investigation, the challan was put in court and on the basis of the allegations, charge under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner.

3. Since the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence in support of its case. It examined 7 witnesses and thereafter statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code in which he denied all the circumstances appearing in the case against him. He examined three witnesses in defence.

4. After hearing the arguments, trial Court found him guilty under Sections 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof six months RI under each count. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the revision.

5. Today no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite notice having been issued to him as per the direction issued on 27.7.2000. It seems that petitioner, who in 1982 had already put in 28 years of service, is no longer interested in this petition because he must have already retired from service.

6. With the help of the State counsel, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, who have concurrently found that the petitioner was responsible for forging the signatures of the presiding officer on the attendance certificate and consequently was guilty of the offences for which he had been charged. The plea against his conviction on the basis of non- compliance with the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code which was advanced by the petitioner, was rightly rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, it not being any part of the duty of the petitioner to forge the documents of the Presiding Officer before whom he was required to appear for giving evidence. Furthermore, at the time of the incident the petitioner was only serving as ASI and as such would be removable from service by the S.S.P. In this view of the matter also, the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code would not be attracted as the approval of the State Government was not required before he could be removed from service. Looked from any angle, there are no grounds for interfering with the order of conviction recorded against the petitioner. Another ground on which the relief has been sought in this case was the fact that the petitioner was not previous convict and taking into consideration the fact that th