Salim Ansari Son Of Aklu Mian vs The State Of Jharkhandthrough ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3749 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      Cr. Revision No. 32 of 2012

        1. Salim Ansari son of Aklu Mian
        2. Md. Israil Ansari son of Late Maula Mian
           Both residents of B.C.C.L. Area-VI,
           P.O. & P.S. Dhansar,
           Distt.- Dhanabd, Jharkhand      ...    ...       Petitioners
                                -Versus-
           The State of Jharkhandthrough C.B.I.
                                           ...    ...      Opp. Party
                                     ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

14/01.10.2021

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners alongwith Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-C.B.I..

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-1, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 34/1992 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.07.1992 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 18 of 1985(D) / T.R. No. 287/1991.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 420 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 420 of IPC and in default of

payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although certain arguments were advanced on the previous date, but he has been instructed to confine his arguments on the point of sentences of the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for having used a forged matriculation certification for obtaining promotion to the post of Munshi Grade-III in Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Public Sector Company. He submitted that the petitioners were already working in the organization and the matter does not relate to getting employment on the basis of forged certificate, but it is only a matter of promotion on the basis of forged certificate. He further submitted that interview for the promotion was held on 15.05.1980 and thereafter, the petitioners were promoted and the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1985 and thus, the petitioners at best have enjoyed the promotional benefits for a short duration of a little more than four years only. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners do not have any other case and they are poor persons. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner No.1 was dismissed from his service in the year 2012 and Petitioner No.2 ultimately retired from his service in the year 2017.

7. The learned counsel submitted that as per the records of the case, the present age of the petitioners is more than 58 years and the F.I.R. being of the year 1985, the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long time i.e. for about 36 years. He further submitted that the petitioners have remained

in custody in connection with the present case from 02.01.1986 to 15.02.1986 for a period about 45 days during trial and for a period from 13.12.2011 to 27.03.2012 during the pendency of the present petition i.e. for a total period of more than five months. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences of the petitioners may be modified by confining it to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody. He also submitted that the fine amount may be enhanced under each section.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party- C.B.I. submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below in connection with the conviction under Section 420 of the IPC as well as Section 471 of IPC and no interference as such is called for, so far as conviction is concerned. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as the sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take a decision in the matter. However, the fact remains that the case relates to promotion in public employment.

9. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-C.B.I. during the course of arguments has not disputed any of the factual aspects which have been narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding date of incident, etc. and also the fact that the petitioners at best have enjoyed the benefits of the promotional post for a period of less than five years.

Findings of this Court

10. The prosecution case based on the First Information Report is that the Opposite Party-C.B.I. learnt through reliable sources that in the year 1980, the petitioners entered into criminal conspiracy with unknown persons to commit an offence of forgery and cheating for the common object of

pecuniary advantage by securing promotion for themselves from the post of Miner Loader to the post of Munshi Grade-II. Investigation disclosed that the petitioners had submitted forged matriculation certificate to the B.C.C.L. department for securing their promotions by illegal means and after receiving the above information, the department directed the petitioners to produce the original matriculation certificates to which both the petitioners filed photostate copies of the matriculation certificates purportedly issued by the Bihar Secondary Examination Board, Patna from Katoria High School and M.R.D. High School respectively. The department learnt that both the petitioners were never the students of the said High Schools respectively and no admit card was issued in their names for allowing them to appear in the matriculation examination and they had never appeared in the Bihar School Annual Examination from the respective schools in the year 1978. It was further revealed that the school leaving certificate of the both the petitioners were written by one and the same person and as such, it was clear that both the petitioners manufactured the certificates in conspiracy with other persons and they used the said certificates before the interview board as genuine knowing the same to be forged and they got promotions to the post of Munshi Grade-III on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates and as such, they cheated the B.C.C.L. authority.

11. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, charges were framed under the same sections to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. In course of trial, the C.B.I. examined altogether 12 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is B.N. Jha, Personnel

Manager, B.C.C.L., P.W.-2 is Uma Kant Jha, Deputy Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L. posted in Kustore Area who was a member of the interview board and P.W.-3 is Deepak Biswas who was also a Deputy Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L. in the year 1980 posted in Kusunda Area and was also a member of the interview board. P.W.-4 is Manjoor Alam who was an assistant in B.S.E.B., Patna, P.W.-5 is Amar Singh, P.W.-7 is Indra Bhushan Prasad, P.W.-8 is Sadanand Singh, P.W.-9 is an Assistant Jailor posted in Dhanbad, P.W.-10 is Ram Lagan Singh, P.W.-11 is Binay Kumar and P.W.-12 is the investigating officer of the case. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed to be innocent. Thereafter, D.W.-1 was examined by the petitioners in their defence.

13. The learned courts below convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code after considering the materials on record. The concurrent finding of facts also reflected from the order passed by the learned appellate court at Para-9, which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: -

"From the evidences of all the examined witnesses it is clear that the matriculation certificates such as SLCs and mark sheets, purported to be issued by B.S.E.B. Patna are not genuine and the same are forged and the appellants have also admitted that they are not matriculate so the above certificate which are said to be forged must would have been issued by the some persons either on the instance of the above noted accused persons or anyone else but ultimately the accused persons shall be responsible for the same since they are the beneficiaries and they are said to have used the same for the purpose of their promotions, so allegedly it shall be the responsibility of the accused persons unless the rebutted is proved because the appellants have filed their respective bio datas regarding their educational qualification etc. in their own hand writing and they are said to have appeared in the interview

and finally they are said to be produced the original certificates before the authority concerned which has been exhibited. Therefore, the entire responsibilities lie upon the appellants. Ultimately they are beneficiaries and they have used for the self preparation so they cannot shift responsibility from their heads to anyone else such as Prahalad Singh. The said Prahalad Singh as per defence may be instrumental, or on his instance, they might would have been courages as such but ultimately the entire responsibility false on their heads. Therefore, on the above discussions about all the facts and circumstances as well as from perusal of exhibits 1 to 29/1 and other exhibits as per exhibit list for identification, I find that ld. Court below rightly passed the order and judgment in this case and he is rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there is no illegality and irregularity in the passed judgment. Therefore, the criminal appeal is dismissed."

14. This Court has also gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and found that the materials on record were duly considered by the learned courts below and no illegality or perversity, as such, has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who during his argument, has himself confined the arguments on the point of sentenced.

15. This Court also finds that it is not in dispute that the allegation relates to obtaining promotion on the basis of forged matriculation certificate and the case does not relate to induction in the employment under Public Sector Company i.e. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. This Court also finds that the petitioners have remained in custody for more than five months and have faced the rigors of the criminal case for about 36 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, has also submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be

met, if the sentences of the petitioners are modified to some extent by enhancing the fine amounts.

16. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners are modified and reduced to a period of five months with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Rs.25,000/- each for the offence under Section 471 of IPC. The entire fine amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- each is to be deposited by the petitioners before the learned court below within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. The learned court below is directed to verify the period of custody of the petitioners and to proceed accordingly.

17. In case, the fine amounts is not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and they would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned court below.

18. The present criminal revision application is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

20. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court below.

21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul