SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried under Section 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Magistrate. An appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 20th January, 1984, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he upheld his conviction and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner came up in revision in this Court.

(2.) IT has been alleged against the petitioner by the prosecution that he was running a coaching college at Khanna. He admitted some students and charged admission fee as well as examination fee from them. They were taken to Gawalior and made to appear there is some examination. Later on, they were given certificates Exhibit P1 to P4 supposed to have been issued by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. Ultimately, those certificates were sent to the Punjab University, Chandigarh. The University, after investigation, came to a findings that the aforesaid certificates were not genuine documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a definite finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner, had forged the documents. Therefore, he acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he came to finding that since documents Exhibits P1 to P4 were forged ones so a presumption could be raised against the petitioner that he knew that these documents were forged or had reason to believe that these documents were forged. I am afraid that the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not correct. The onus was on the prosecution to prove by some cogent evidence that the petitioner had the knowledge or had reason to believe that the documents were forged. The prosecution in this case has failed to discharge this onus. Support for this view is sought from Chett Ram v. State of Haryana, 1980 CAR 21 (SC), wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold that regarding an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code it was necessary to consider whether the prosecution had established by adducing cogent and convincing evidence that the appellant knew or had reason to believe the ticket to be forged document when he presented it before the treasury officer and later before the director to claim special prize on the basis thereof. Proof of this factual ingredient was essential for the conviction of the appelant of an offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of this legal position, I think the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.