Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1708 of 2024 | Crl.R.C.No.1711 of 2024 | Crl.A.No.37 of 2019 | C.C.No.350 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.U.Prasanna
For the Respondent:Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Convictions for fraudulently obtaining government employment through forged documents upheld despite challenges regarding evidentiary support and complainant's locus.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 r/w 442 - Criminal revision involving convictions under IPC for fabricating appointment orders to secure government employment by fraud - Prosecution established charges through corroborative evidence. (Paras 2-13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Locus standi of complainant and evidentiary contradictions were insufficient to undermine the conviction backed by material evidence and affidavits. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted for forging appointment orders to secure teaching positions, while not qualifying based on actual test scores, resulting in receiving substantial salaries unlawfully.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts confirmed that due verification substantiated the allegations of forgery and unlawful employment.
Issues: The court examined the validity of the complaints, locus standi, and evidentiary support relative to the convictions made.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts upheld that the verification processes conducted, alongside testimonies against the authenticity of appointment orders, substantiated the charges and justifiably confirmed the sentence of the petitioners.
Result: Revision cases dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revisions challenge lower court decisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners participated in a fraud scheme to secure employment. (Para 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 3. argument focused on the lack of locus standi for complainant. (Para 5) |
| 4. court found sufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's case. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. court dismissed revisions confirming prior convictions. (Para 9 , 11) |
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai District, in Crl.A.No.37 of 2019, confirming the judgment dated 11.10.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai District, in C.C.No.350 of 2017, thereby convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC.
2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1708 of 2024 is arrayed as the first accused and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1711 of 2024 is arrayed as the second accused. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2013, the Teachers Eligibility Test was conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, in which both the petitioners had participated and secured 68 and 53 marks respectively out of 150 marks in part-II paper. The eligibility mark was fixed at 82 marks out of 150 marks for appointment to the post of Teacher. Therefore, the petitioners were not called for any counselling for the post of Teacher.
Thereafter, both fraudulently prepared the forged appointment orders as if they had secured 93 and 101 marks respectively out of 150 marks and joined in the Government High School, Melmattai, Vinnamangalam, Thiruvannamalai District as Social Science Teacher and English Teacher on 26.09.2014 & 27.09.2014 respectively. They received salary to the tune of Rs.10,07,990/-
each.
3. While being so, on 15.06.2016, one Baskaran lodged complaint before the Chief Minister Special cell and the same was forwarded to the Chief Education Officer of Thiruvannamalai District. Thereafter, he lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.9 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.350 of 2017.
4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and they marked documents as Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
465, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC and sentenced them as follows :-
S.No.
Conviction
Sentence
1
Section 465 of IPC
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2
Section 468 of IPC
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3
Section 471 of IPC
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
4
Section 420 of IPC
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Hence the present revision case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that one Baskar lodged complaint before the Chief Minister cell on 15.06.2016, who has no locus to lodge complaint. No one deposed that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the said Baskaran, re
