Oral Judgment:
Heard. Rule was issued on 4.12.2000 with interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d).
2. In R.C.C. No.81/1982, by judgment and order dated 22.7.1991, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir convicted the petitioner (original accused No.2) Dilip Ganpat Gaikwad for offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 45 days. For offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 30 days. Said judgment was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.33/1991. However, on 22.7.1991, the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.
3. The prosecution case, in short is, the Deputy Collector at Udgir had received report from Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Nasik, doubting certificate presented by original accused No.1 Basavraj Sangramappa Thonte, Resident of Wadhona, Taluka Udgir, showing his caste to be Lingdhar. The caste certificate was not allegedly signed by Tahsildar, thereby said accused Basavraj has cheated the Government. It revealed in the enquiry, bogus and false certificate was prepared by accused No.2/ appellant. Offence vide Crime No.114/1981 under Section 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Police seized incriminating article (seals and stamps), caste certificate (tainted - Exhibit 92) was taken charge.
4. Charge was explained by learned Magistrate below Exhibit 45. The petitioner pleaded his ignorance. However, subsequent to the evidence, in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner accepted that tainted caste certificate was scribed by him.
5. In order to establish the charge against the petitioner and original accused No.1, the Principal of the College Mr. Rajkishore Biyani is examined as P.W.1 at Exhibit 53. There is no controversy that at the instance of the Principal (P.W.1), the racket was unearthed as letter (Exhibit 54) issued by him and having received the reply from learned Tahsildar, dated 27.11.1980 that the certificate (Exhibit 92) was forged. Manikrao Kulkarni, the Tahsildar, in his evidence stated about his duration of work from 31.7.1979 to 9.3.1980 and 24.4.1980 to 6.7.1980. At such time, P.W.5 Dattatraya Joshi, Clerk was entrusted for preparing the caste certificates. According to him, the accused No.2 used to visit at Tahsil Office, assisting needy persons in coordinating. He has disputed the writing at Exhibit 92 to be belonging to him. P.W.4 Gopal Khobre has stated about signature of Special Land Acquisition Officer, B and C, Parbhani, who was Tahsildar, Udgir Mr. M.N. Kulkarni and has proved the specimen signatures at Exhibit 63 and panchanama at Exhibit 65. In fact Gopal Khobre has personal acquaintance to the signature of Tahsildar M.N. Kulkarni. The evidence of P.W.5 illustrate, the certificate in question was not issued by him. He did not produce work sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has criticised non-production of such work sheet to be fatal for the prosecution. The production of work sheet was essential, it was the genuineness of the caste certificate (Exhibit 92) of which worth was essential.
6. P.W.11 Shrawankumar, panch, in whose presence specimen signatures of petitioner/ accused were drawn, has turned hostile. However, his hostility will not be fatal to the prosecution as the document of panchanama and the signature of specimen were collected in presence of investigating officer and another panch. Moreover, in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused did not dispute the specimen signatures or the writing on certificate Exhibit 92. There was no reason for the accused/ petitioner to have issued such caste certificate. He had rather no authority to do so. He has coordinated with original accused No.1 Basavraj in performing forged document, that too a public record.
7. Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates:
(a) The document was a forgery,
(b) It was forged by a particular person,
(c) Forgery of record of public register.
8. Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code deals with making a false document:-
First:- Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record,
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly, who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration, or
Thirdly, who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
9. Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code deals with forgery. It provides, whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person., or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
10. The certificate Exhibit 92, the tainted document was used for seeking admission to the Government College at Nasik by accused No.1. Had the petitioner as accused No.2 desisted to issue such forged certificate, there could not be any contingency of its presentation for seeking admission at the Government College. The petitioner, knowingly put script in the caste certificate to ensure its end use.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the original accused No.1 Basavraj has been acquitted in Criminal Revision Application No.54/2000 on 23.1.2009 by this Court. There is no contest on this aspect. However, such acquittal was not on merit, but it was by giving benefit of juvenility as asserted by said accused Basavraj to be 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence. This Court gave benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amended Act, 2006.
12. The conviction, consequently recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for interference. Rule discharged.
13. Necessary fees be paid to Mr. Ganachari, learned Advocate, who has exhaustively argued the matter.