Judgment:
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, but was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC on 22.9.1999 by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Police Challan No. 42-II of 1994 and he was sentenced under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC each to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 1999 against his conviction and sentence dated 22.9.1999, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 11.10.2002, hence the present revision petition. It has been noticed that in the record the appellant has been referred Jagdeep Chand as well as Jagdeep Singh. There is no dispute that Jagdeep Chand and Jagdeep Singh is one and the same person.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.11.1990 Principal, Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur had lodged a complaint in writing to Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, which was received in Police Station on 16.11.1990 that in the months of April to June 1990 an advertisement was issued by the College Authorities for admission to four years degree course in the newspapers. The petitioner in response to that advertisement had applied for admission on prescribed form signed by Basant Ram father of Jagdeep Chand with the declaration that all the entries of the form were correct. The declaration included detail marks obtained in plus two examination in H.P. Board of School Education in the year 1989 under Roll No. 4305 by securing 77.5% marks. Jagdeep Chand was called for interview alongwith original certificates in the College, but he could not produce his plus two certificate at the time of interview. Later on Jagdeep Chand had produced an attested copy of duplicate certificate bearing Serial No. 013327 and thereby provisional admission was given to Jagdeep Chand till the production of original certificate. Jagdeep Chand produced certificate on 31.7.1990 and the College Authorities acted bonafide and admitted Jagdeep Chand in four years degree course. It was alleged in the complaint that there was tampering in the certificate produced by Jagdeep Chand and the College authorities referred the matter to Secretary, Board of School Education vide letter dated 28.8.1990 for verification and authenticity, an intimation was received from the Secretary, H.P. Board of School Education on 3.11.1990 disclosing that Jagdeep Chand who took plus two examination in March 1989 under Roll No. 4305 was declared to have obtained compartment in physics till March 1990. The duplicate certificate with Sr. No. 013327 was issued to Rama Nand Sharma son of Hans Raj Sharma, who took his examination in March 1988 from D.A.V. College, Kangra under Roll No. 76639 by securing 309 marks.
3. It was found that certificate of Rama Nand Sharma was prepared and taken by Lekh Raj Kashyap an Assistant of the Board on 13.3.1990. It was also found that Basant Ram name of father of Jagdeep Chand as well as marks and the word private and District Bilaspur were tampered by erasing the words in order to commit forgery and to cheat the college authorities. Rama Nand never applied for duplicate certificate nor Rama Nand authorized Lekh Raj Kashyap, Assistant in the Board to obtain the duplicate certificate on his behalf. Jagdeep Chand, Lekh Raj, Basant Ram conspired with an intention to cheat the college authorities. The duplicate false certificate was prepared deliberately and intentionally knowing fully that it would be used as genuine by concealing material facts. During investigation, the admitted handwritings and signatures of Jagdeep Chand, Basant Ram, Lekh Raj Kashyap were taken and sent for comparison to the Government Examiner of Questioned documents.
4. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against Jagdeep Chand, Basant Ram and Lekh Raj for offence punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC. Lekh Raj and Basant Ram were charged for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, IPC, whereas Jagdeep Chand was charged for offence punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC. The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and placed on record some documents. Jagdeep Chand, Lekh Raj and Basant Ram were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case. They led no evidence in defence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Lekh Raj and Basant Ram, but convicted and sentenced Jagdeep Chand. The appeal filed by Jagdeep Chand was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, as noticed above. Jagdeep Chand has filed the present revision petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Vats has mainly submitted that Jagdeep Chand was less than 21 years of age as per his date of birth 10.5.1971 recorded in his Matriculation examination certificate Ex. P-12, which is not in dispute. He has submitted that in view of prosecution case petitioner was admittedly less than 21 years of age inasmuch as the alleged offence was committed in the year 1990 when on the basis of alleged forged certificate Ex. P-13, the petitioner took admission in the Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the Act), which can be extended either by this Court or by the courts below. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgement and submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner by leading unimpeachable evidence, which has established the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that Section 6 of the Act is not mandatory in the sense that court is bound to give benefit of probation in every case covered by Section 6 of the Act. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. In so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered documentary evidence proved on record. The trial court has also taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner, which is of denial only. The petitioner got admission in the Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur on the basis of declaration given in admission form Ex. P-7 and certificate Ex.P-13 of plus two examination, which was found to be forged. This duplicate certificate has been proved to be issued to one Rama Nand Sharma, who passed his plus two examination in March 1988 under Roll No. 76639, which has been established by result sheet Ex. PW 8/B. The petitioner appeared in plus two examination in March 1989 from District Bilaspur under Roll No. 4305. He got compartment in physics till March 1990 as per result sheet Ex. PW 8/A. In Ex. PW 11/A admission form of petitioner in Government Degree College, Bilaspur he has shown himself having secured compartment in plus two and, therefore, he was admitted provisionally in BSc Part I in the College. The Handwriting Expert has also corroborated the prosecution case. The trial court has recorded a specific finding that certificate Ex. P 13 was found to be forged. The petitioner took the defence of denial but the documents, which have been placed and proved on record by the prosecution absolutely prove the involvement of the petitioner for commission of offence for which he has been convicted. The learned Sessions Judge has also looked into the matter again and has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial court. In the revision, it has not been pointed out from the material on record that two courts below have ignored such material evidence which goes to the root of the case or inadmissible evidence was relied by the courts below in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. No perversity in the impugned judgement has been pointed out. The jurisdiction of this Court in revision is limited where re-appreciation of the evidence is not possible unless something glaring defect is brought to the notice of this Court from the material on record, but no such glaring defect in the impugned judgement has been shown. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference so far his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC is concerned.
7. In so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab : 1965CriLJ360 . In Musakhan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : 1976CriLJ1987 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 6 of the Act is mandatory. In Rattan Lal (supra), it has been held that revisional and appellate courts are competent to invoke Section 6 of the Act. The Matriculation Certificate Ex. P-12 of the petitioner in which his date of birth 10.5.1971 has been recorded is not in dispute. Therefore, on the date of offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC, the petitioner was less than 21 years of age and none of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life. Therefore, while sentencing the petitioner, Section 6 of the Act is to be taken into consideration. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act provides that before considering the case under Section 3 or Section 4 of an accused referred to in Sub-section (1), the court shall call for a report from the Probation Officer and consider the report, if any, and other information available to it with regard to character, physical and mental condition of offender. There is no such report on record, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. In these circumstances, the report of the Probation Officer as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act is necessary before giving benefit, if any, of Section 6 of the Act to the petitioner.
8. No other point was urged.
9. The result of the above discussion, the conviction of petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC is upheld. The petitioner shall be heard on quantum of sentence, he be produced on 19.6.2009, in the meantime, report of concerned Probation officer regarding petitioner be called for on or before 15.6.2009. Put up on 19.6.2009.