The central legal point established is the use of forged documents for securing employment, leading to convictions under relevant sections of IPC.

G.S. Solanki, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s. 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/12/09 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj District Rewa in S.T. No. 219/08 whereby being convicted u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs. 1000/- each on four counts with default stipulations. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that appellant has been appointed on the post of driver in the year 1985 in M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd. Silpara (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the company'). One complaint was received by employer against the appellant as to the effect that appellant entered into the service on the basis of forged marksheet of 8th Class. The similar complaint was made by Ram Naresh (PW-7) brother of appellant. On receiving the aforesaid complaint R.K. Pandey (PW-1), Officer of the company had issued a show cause notice to appellant on which appellant filed a second copy of marksheet on 26/07/02 however, the material difference was found in the marksheet attached to the service book of appellant and the second copy of marksheet produced by appellant on 26/07/02. Thereafter, again a show cause notice has been issued to the appellant for his explanation and in reply, he stated that false and fabricated marksheet found in his service record, same was not filed by him. Further he pleaded ignorance that when and who attached aforesaid marksheet in his service record. Side by side, Ramnaresh (PW-7), brother of appellant has filed the repeat complaints (Exhibit P-24, 25, 26) to the police. Police has registered the offence against the appellant u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the appellant. After due investigation, appellant has been charge sheeted before the JMFC, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the appellant.

2. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. He further pleaded that due to the family dispute his brother Ramnaresh (PW-7) has lodged a false report against him. He adduced B.P. Chaturvedi (DW-1) in his defence.

3. On appreciation of evidence trial Court recorded the conviction and sentence as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective therefore, prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the Objector as well as State has supported the judgment and finding recorded by the Court below.

6. I have perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. I.K. Pandey (PW-8), Executive Engineer has stated that appellant has filed the second copy of marksheet (Ex. P.-1) on 26/06/06 alongwith the covering memo (Ex. P-3). It is further stated that on comparison of Ex. P.-1 with the certified copy of marksheet attached with the service record of appellant he found material difference in both the marksheets therefore, he issued a show cause notice (Ex. P-8) to appellant on which appellant has filed his reply (Ex. P-9). On careful scrutiny of aforesaid documents like Ex. P-1 and marksheet which is attached in service record of appellant which is duly seized from the office from possession of Executive Engineer in presence of independent witnesses Raheesuddin and Ramakant Shukl, he found material difference that in marksheet filed on service record appellant has passed his 8th Class from Pre Middle School Hakariya and in the marksheet later on produced by appellant same examination said to have been passed from Shashkiya Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kramank No. 1 Rewa. However, similar numbers were shown in both the marksheets. Though, appellant wrote in his explanation that he is unable to explain that who filed the certified copy of mar