Karnataka High Court
K M Basavaraju vs The State Of Karnataka By on 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
CRL.RP No. 787 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.787 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
K. M. BASAVARAJU
S/O. MALLESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT CARE OF VEDA SRIKANTA
MADANAYAKANAHALLI, MADAVARA POST
BENGALURU - 562 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY S. J. PARK POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, H.C.G.P.)
***
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE
DATED 5.11.2013 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.
NO.15187/2005 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.
NO.620/2013 DATED 20.6.2015, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 468, 471
AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 10-11-2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
CRL.RP No. 787 of 2015
ORDER
Heard Sri M. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. N. Anitha Girish, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner-accused has preferred this
revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
05.11.2013 passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Criminal Case No.15187 of 2005
and judgment confirmed by the LII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru City, in
Criminal Appeal No.620 of 2013 dated 20.06.2015,
wherein both the Courts passed concurrent findings in
respect of the offences punishable under Sections 468,
471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC')
and convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
petitioner is the sole accused and the respondent is the
complainant-State before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as
under:-
Accused-K. M. Basavaraju was a candidate to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police (for short, 'PSI') and he
appeared for written examination held on 09.01.2005. On
19.11.2004, PW1 Doctor examined the accused and issued
Ex.P1-certificate to him. Though the accused was held to
be "unfit" in Physical Standard Test held, he deleted the
letters "un" from the certificate and forged it as "fit" with
an intention to cheat the Government. He produced the
Physical Standard Test certificate knowing that it was
forged certificate and used it as genuine certificate for PSI
written examination before PW2 and thereby, committed
the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420
of IPC. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case,
examined in all seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
marked twelve documents as Exs.P1 to P12. After hearing
both sides, the trial Court based on oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the accused for the offences charged.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No.620/2013 and in turn, the
First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this
revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by both the Courts is without application
of mind, which leads to erroneous conclusion. The
prosecution failed to prove the requirements of Section
468 of IPC. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove
the alleged forgery and forged medical certificate-
Ex.P2 by deleting the letters "un" from the word "unfit" so
as to make it "fit".
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
8. It is further contended that PW1-Dr. Ramesh K.
Kavalaguda examined the accused and issued Physical
Standard Test certificate vide Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is its carbon
copy. PW2 is the Lecturer working as Invigilator at the
relevant time during written examination for the post of
PSI, PW3 is the DIG Police, PW4 is the PSI who
apprehended the accused from Khanapur Training Center,
PW5 is the PSI and Investigating Officer, PW6 is the PSI
who received the complaint and registered the case and
PW7 is in-charge of Recruitment Committee and none of
these witnesses has seen the accused forging Ex.P2.
Hence, there is nothing on record to indicate that it is
accused, who forged Ex.P2. Therefore, the conviction
cannot be based merely on the basis of presumption and
assumptions. It is contended that the questioned
document Ex.P2 was not shown to PW2 and it was not
identified by him. PW2 never lodged any complaint
against the accused. In spite of it, both the Courts failed
to give proper finding on the testimony of PW2. The
evidence of PW2 did not aid the prosecution case to any
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
extent. Hence, the trial Court and the First Appellate
Court ought to have acquitted the accused. It is
contended that Ex.P2 was not subjected to expert opinion
and there is no corroboration from any angle to the case
of the prosecution. As per the case of the prosecution, the
accused forged Ex.P2 to appear for the PSI examination
and used it as genuine document to receive the job. But
the allegations would attract only the punishment for
attempting to commit the offence, as the accused has not
been selected for the post of PSI. The trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the
evidence, but convicted the accused. Hence, he prays to
allow the petition.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by both the Courts is in accordance with
law; both the Courts have assigned proper and acceptable
reasons while imposing sentence on the accused; both the
Courts have taken into consideration the gravity of
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
offence committed against the State by producing forged
document in order to get the post of PSI. Hence, the
accused has committed the offences which are serious in
nature and he has cheated the Government by producing
forged Ex.P2-certificate; both the Courts have considered
this aspect of the matter and have rightly convicted the
accused. On all these grounds, she prays to reject the
petition.
10. Perused the submissions of both the sides and
perused the material on record.
11. As per the case of the prosecution, on
09.01.2005, the accused appeared for the written
examination conducted for the post of PSI and produced
Ex.P2-certificate before PW2 though he was certified to be
"unfit" in Physical Standard Test held on 19.11.2004 by
deleting the letters "un" from the certificate and forged it
as "fit" for Physical Standard Test, with an intention to
cheat the Government knowing that it was forged
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
document. Therefore, PW2 lodged the complaint as per
Ex.P3.
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case,
examined PW1-Dr. Ramesh K. Kavalaguda, Senior Medical
Officer, K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru, who has stated
that on 19.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m., he examined the
accused and issued Ex.P1-certificate to the accused. Ex.P2
is the carbon copy of Ex.P1. His further evidence is that,
the accused has poor hearing power and failed in Physical
Standard Test and thus, he issued "unfit" certificate to the
accused. He has specifically stated that in Ex.P2-carbon
copy, the term "un" is missing and hence, it gives
impression as "fit". But the original certificate-Ex.P1
discloses as "unfit".
13. PW1 being a competent authority examined the
accused in accordance with law and found disability of the
accused and accordingly, he issued Ex.P1 in favour of the
accused. He has clearly stated that the accused is "unfit"
for the post of PSI. Contrary to his evidence, the accused
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
has not placed any material to disbelieve his credibility
and the material to show the fitness of the accused for the
post of PSI.
14. PW2-J. Kamath, who was Invigilator in the
written examination held on 09.01.2005, has stated that
on 09.01.2005, the accused entered the examination hall
and produced Ex.P2-certificate. Hence, he perused Ex.P2-
certificate with Ex.P1-original certificate and came to
know that the accused has forged the contents of Ex.P2,
especially the letters "un", in the place of "unfit".
Therefore, he informed the Police and lodged the
complaint as per Ex.P3. PW1 who initially saw the forged
document in the possession of the accused and knew the
difference in Exs.P1 & P2. He also verified Ex.P2 with
examination hall list, wherein the name of the accused
was not found place, especially, in the list of the eligible
candidates.
15. PW3-Pavanjith Singh Sandu, the Director
BTMTC, who was working as DIGP (Training) and Member
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
Secretary, PSI Recruitment Committee, has stated that on
19.11.2004, he conducted Physical Standard Test for
various candidates for the post of PSI and the accused
attended for the said post and he was issued with "unfit"
certificate, but the accused by deleting the letters "un",
appeared for Written Test Examination at Bhagawan
Mahaveer Jain College on 09.01.2005. PW2 who was
deputed to work as Invigilator verified Ex.P2 with Ex.P1
and came to know that the accused forged the term "un".
Therefore, PW2 lodged the complaint. He further stated
that in Ex.P4-List of candidates, the name of the accused
found place at Sl.No.88 with Roll No.63288 at Page Nos.3
of 4 and it was written as 'Medically Unfit and not
qualified'. So only qualified candidates would eligible for
written test. Hence, the accused was not the qualified
candidate and the hall ticket was not issued to the
accused. He further stated that, he was supplied with
extra question paper and answer-sheets, which were in
separate cover, wherein it was stated that the accused by
placing fabricated "fit" Form-Ex.P2 by furnishing it in the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
examination hall and appeared for examination. He
further stated that he issued Ex.P5-Letter to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Bengaluru. The
contents Ex.P5 is as under:
"No. 16/RECT/2003-04 Date: 19.03.2005
To,
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Central Division,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
No.1, Infantry Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Sub: Cheating and forgery committed by
K.M. Basavaraju
~~~~
May kindly be informed that Sri K.M.Basavaraju,
Roll No.63288, Appl No.24678 by means of forgery,
managed to take part in the written examination of Civil
Police Sub-Inspector/Women Police Sub-Inspector held
on 09.01.2005, at Mahaveer Jain College, Bangalore
thereby adopting illegal means. His modus operandi was
to change his unfit status in the Physical Standard Test
sheet to that of fit so as to make him eligible for the
written examination. On verification, this act of forgery
was discovered when his original records were
compared with the papers submitted by the candidate
at the examination centre.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
It has been decided to lodge a formal complaint
in this regard. Hence, you are requested to take
necessary action. Copies of the documents are enclosed.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(P.S.SANDHU IPS)
Dy. Inspector General of Police,
Training & Member Secretary,
PSIs Recruitment Committee,
Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bangalore-560 001."
16. PW4-Narayanashetty, Inspector of Police, who
arrested the accused.
17. PW5-M. L. Purushothama, who conducted
investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the
accused.
18. PW6-Chikkadoddaiah, PSI, who received the
complaint and registered the FIR-Ex.P12.
19. PW7-Govind, in-charge of Recruitment
Committee, has stated that on 09.01.2005, the PSI
written examination was held at Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain
College, Bengaluru, and the accused appeared before him
for interview. But in the written test list, the name of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
accused was not listed and the name of the accused was
shown as "unfit" for Physical Standard Test, but the
accused manipulated and fabricated Ex.P2.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that Ex.P2-carbon copy of Ex.P1-Fitness Certificate issued
to the accused was not shown to PW2 and he has not
identified it.
21. From perusal of the chief-examination of PW2, he
has identified both Exs.P1 and P2 and objected the
accused to appear for the written examination of the PSI.
Immediately, he informed the Police, who was present at
the spot and as per his instructions, PW2 permitted the
accused to write the examination under protest in spite of
there was no serial number of the accused mentioned in
the list. Though his roll number was not mentioned in the
examination hall, the accused managed to write the
examination. Hence, it clearly establishes that PW2, at
initial stage, informed the said aspect to the Police Officer
and later, he lodged the complaint against the accused.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
22. It is contended that Ex.P2 was not subjected to
any expert opinion. It is not the case of the accused that
he was not issued with Exs.P1 and P2-Fitness Certificate
by PW1 Medical Officer. Further, PW1 in categorical terms
has stated that he examined the accused and thus, issued
'Unfit Certificate' as per Ex.P2-carbon copy of Ex.P1. But
the accused tampered the contents of Ex.P2. The term
"un" is missing and it gives impression "fit", but the
original certificate discloses "unfit". Therefore, when the
correctness of Ex.P1 was not challenged by the accused,
the carbon copy of Ex.P1, i.e. Ex.P2 does not require any
expert opinion and tampering made in Ex.P2 is clearly
visible to anybody. Hence, the same does not require any
expert opinion.
23. The fact remains that the accused applied for the
post of PSI, he forged Ex.P2, managed to take part in
written examination held on 09.01.2005 at Bhagawan
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
Mahaveer Jain College, Bengaluru, thereby adopted illegal
means. His modus operandi was to change his "unfit"
status in the Physical Standard Test sheet to that of "fit"
so as to make him eligible for the written examination and
from the verification of the contents of Ex.P2 with Ex.P1,
the act of forgery is discovered when his original records
were compared with the papers submitted by him at the
examination centre.
24. The act of the accused clearly reveals that he
forged the contents of Ex.P2 and used it as a genuine
document in order to get the job of the PSI and thereby,
cheated the Government. From perusal of the contents of
Ex.P4 at Sl. No.88, the name of the accused is shown as
Basavaraju K.M., his application No.24678 and Roll
No.63288 and in remarks column, his status is shown as
'not qualified'.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the prosecution relied upon the official witnesses alone
and the Investigating Officer has not cited and examined
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
any of the independent witnesses, therefore, their
testimonies appear to be interested one.
26. As rightly pointed out by the learned High Court
Government Pleader that this being a revision petition
against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the
First Appellate Court, the scope of interference on the
factual aspects is very limited.
27. In the instant case, PW1 is the Medical Officer,
who examined the accused and issued Ex.P1-Fitness
Certificate and Ex.P2-carbon copy of Ex.P1, PW2 is the
Invigilator in whose presence the accused appeared for
written examination of PSI and produced Ex.P2. PW3 is
the BTMTC Director, PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police,
PW5 is the Inspector of Police and PW6 is the Sub-
Inspector of Police. The evidence of the official witnesses
and the Police Officers cannot be discarded merely
because they are official witnesses and Police officials. In
the absence of hostility to the accused, if the evidence of
official witnesses and the Police Officers who recovered
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
Ex.P2 is convincing, the evidence as to recovery of Ex.P2
need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses
did not support the case of the prosecution and the
evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot be branded as
highly interested on the ground that he wants the accused
to be convicted. Therefore, the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the accused has no merit.
28. The evidence on record shows that the accused
did not dispute the written examination held on
09.01.2005 and his participation in the said examination
by furnishing Ex.P2-certificate. He did not dispute the
correctness of contents of Ex.P1-certificate, which
disqualified him to appear for the post of PSI. It was his
defence that the accused never forged the document and
he did not get any job on the basis of Ex.P2. The fact
remains that, the accused forged the document issued by
PW1 and used the said document as genuine document,
appeared for the examination for the post of PSI, in order
to get job on the basis of the forged document, thereby
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
fabricated the document and used the said document as
genuine document for the purpose of cheating the
Government. Hence, he is held guilty of the offences
charged.
29. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are supported by
Exs.P1 and P2 with regard to forgery committed by the
accused in Ex.P2. PW1 has categorically stated that
Ex.P1-certificate was issued to the accused, wherein it is
stated that the accused is "unfit", but in Ex.P2-carbon
copy of Ex.P1, the accused deleted the letters "un" and
therefore, used Ex.P2-certificate as genuine document in
order to appear for the examination and to get the job of
PSI.
30. PWs.3, 4, 6 and 7 have stated that the accused
has forged Ex.P2 and used it knowingly that it was the
forged document and made PW2 to believe Ex.P2 as
genuine document, thereby, the accused cheated the
Government to get the benefit of job for the post of PSI.
Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court by
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4749
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record
have rightly convicted the accused.
For the reasons stated above, the revision petition
filed by the petitioner-accused is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
