The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence and the trial court's obligation to consider probation provisions and the convict's personal circumstances before sentencing.

Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-

1. The judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3^rd Court, Krishnagar in connection with GR No. 1561 of 2008 which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 23.12.2016 is in the centre stage of challenge by the revisionist on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned courts below including the First Appellate Court did not consider the materials on record and had unjustly convicted the present revisionist.

2. The learned counsel Mr. Ray has submitted that there are several lacuna in the judgment of conviction affirmed by the appellate court. The learned counsel has pointed out that at the top of the written complaint which was marked as exhibit - 4 it is written that the same was made for presentation by hand. Though the maker of it categorically deposed in court that the same was sent to the police station by registered posts, neither the envelop nor the accompaniments, as stated in the FIR, were exhibited before the Learned Trial Court for adjudication. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an FIR. The learned counsel has also submitted that the written complaint was dated 21.08.2008. After lodgment of the said complaint the same was dispatched to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia on 09.09.2008 i.e. after six days of the lodgment of the said complaint which gives rise to the presumption of embellishment. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon several judicial decisions such as Balaka Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab ( 1975 AIR 1962 ), Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of UP ( AIR 1976 SC 2423 ).

3. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the deposition of PW10, Bankim Chandra Saha who being the investigating officer of the case has stated in the examination-in-chief that “this is original of the fake certificate standing in the name of Samir Das bearing dated 15.05.2001 and serial no. 4260 that I have collected from the C.R.P.F. (marked as exhibit - 12 with objection)”. While in his cross-examination he has stated that “I have received the said fake certificate from Deputy Inspector of Police Group Center Durgapur through police constable Sukdeb Dey. Fact that I have not collected any other documents from the office of SDO Krishnagar”.

4. The learned counsel has categorically submitted that the aforesaid PW10 has contradicted his own version with regard to obtaining the alleged fake certificate. However, neither the C.R.P.F. official nor constable Sukdeb Dey were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the claim of PW 10. According to Mr. Ray, it is clear that the investigation and the documents relied upon are afterthoughts and the conviction based on those evidence cannot sustain. So far as regards relevant law involved in the matter, Mr. Ray has submitted that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code , the prosecution is required to prove the ingredients of section 464 and section 470 of the Indian Penal Code . But in the instant case the prosecution made no allegation nor any attempt was made to prove the alleged document being exhibit - 12 being prepared and signed by the petitioner. Due to the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of section 464 of the Indian Penal Code , the petitioner cannot be convicted under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code . The learned counsel has relied upon the following judicial decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. CBI , 2009 (15) SCC 643 , (Paragraphs – 164, 166), Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj , 2018 (7) SCC 581 (Paragraphs – 18, 22, 25, 30), Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2023) 3 SCC 423 (Paragraphs – 21, 23, 24), Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Paragraphs –14, 16 and 17).

5. Learned counsel Mr. Ray has submitted that the Learned Trial Judge while convicting the petitioner did not deal with all the mandatory provisions of sections 360 and