KISHORE SINGH LODHA,J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS Krishna Gopal, Om Prakash, Bhagwan and Vishnu Ram have been prosecuted by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria Krishna Gopal under Section 465 and the others under Section 471 IPC but have been acquitted of these offences by his judgment dated 19 -4 -1985. The learned Magistrate has found that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the said mark -sheets filed by Om Prakash, Bhagwan and Vishnu Ram in Government College D.V. College of Agriculture, Arts and Science, Sangaria, were forged by Krishna Gopal and that they had in fact been produced by the other three respondents along with their admission forms. After leave to appeal was granted, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents No. 3 and 4 Bhagwan and Vishnu Ram have not been served despite the fact that from November, 1985, the learned P.P. had been granted time and opportunities to get them served and, therefore, by order dated 11 -8 -87, their names were struck off from the array of respondents and it was ordered that the case will proceed against respondents No. 1 and 2, Krishna Gopal and Om Prakash alone.
(2.) I have heard the learned PP and have gone through the record. According to the story put forward by the prosecution, the mark -sheets and the migration certificate of the secondary board of education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal were said to be forged but before the court not a single witness has appeared to state on oath that the signatures or the seals on the documents, namely, mark -sheets Ex.P 4, Ex.P 5 and Ex.P 6 and the migration certificate do not bear the signatures of the persons whose signatures are purported to be on them or the seals thereon are not genuine seals of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses but none of them has stated a word about it.
(3.) IT , of course, appears that the witnesses who were to come from Bhopal in order to establish that these documents are forged were sought to be summoned on a number of times and the learned PP had been granted opportunity after opportunity either to get them served or to produce them in the court but despite all these opportunities those witnesses could not be served or brought before the court and ultimately the court had to close the prosecution evidence by its order dated 6 -4 -1984.;