Telangana High Court
Md. Tahseen, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 28 February, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1521 and 1530 OF 2006
Crl.R.C.No.1521 of 2006:
Between:
Md.Tahseen ... Petitioner/A1
And
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/complainant
Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2006:
Between:
M.A.Raheem and three others ... Petitioners/A2 to A5
And
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.02.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1521 and 1530 OF 2006
% Dated 28.02.2024
Crl.R.C.No.1521 of 2006
# Md.Tahseen ... Petitioner/A1
And
$ The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/complainant
Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2006
# M.A.Raheem and three others ... Petitioners/A2 to A5
And
$ The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/complainant
! Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri C.Sharan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B. Suresh Goud
Assistant Public Prosecutor for
Respondent-State.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 485
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1521 and 1530 OF 2006
COMMON ORDER:
1. Crl.R.C.No.1521 of 2006 is preferred by Accused No.1 and
Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2006 is preferred by Accused Nos.2 to 5.
2. Since the revision petitioners in both the cases are involved in
the very same case, this Court is inclined to dispose off both the
Criminal Revision Cases by way of this common order.
3. It is the case of PW1 who is the defacto complainant and
Inspector of Police that Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were agents to
Accused No.4 and selling fake certificates to public. Accused Nos.4
and 6 were generating fake certificates by using printers, dye
colours, films etc. Accused No.7 was a calligrapher who was filling
up blank certificates in accordance with the directions of A1 and A6.
Accordingly, A1 to A7 as a team were involved in preparation of fake
certificates of educational institutions and other government
departments.
4. PW1 employed a decoy to trap A1. The decoy-PW3 approached
A1 and asked him to prepare two fake certificates in the name of
D.Rajasekhar and Javid Hussain. Accordingly, A1 had prepared the
said certificates and when the certificates were handed over to PW3,
A1 was caught hold by PW1. From his possessions Exs.P8 to P10-
certificates were seized. Pursuant to his confession, A2 was
apprehended and Exs.P11 to P17 were seized from A2; Ex.P18 was
seized from A3; Exs.P19 to P31 and M.Os.1 to 43 were seized from
A4; Exs.P32 to 68 were seized from A5; Exs.P69 to P158, P162 to
183 and also M.Os.44 to 67 were seized from A6. Accused No.1 was
apprehended near Deccan Continental Hotel, Secunderabad.
Pursuant to his confession A2 & A3 were apprehended at Quli
Qutub Shah Hotel, Hyderabad. A4 was found in Falaknuma area.
A5 was apprehended at his residence. As narrated above, the
apprehension of A1 resulted in apprehending A2 to A6 which is a
consequence of confession of each of the accused.
5. The trial Judge examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to
P193. Material Objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 68.
6. The trial Judge found that in view of possession of the fake
certificates and the counterfeit seals, the petitioners/accused were
guilty of the offence under Sections 468, 473 and 474 of the Indian
Penal code. Under each count they were sentenced to two years
imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge concurred
with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the conviction.
7. The counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the
genesis of the prosecution case itself is unbelievable. PW1 states
that he had apprehended A1 to A6 with all the certificates which
were found on their person. It is highly improbable that so many
certificates and seals would be carried on their person by the
accused and roaming on the roads. Alternatively, the counsel relied
on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in V.K.Verma v.
Central Bureau of Investigation 1. In the said Judgment, the
Honourable Supreme Court found that the litigation was almost for
three decades, accordingly, sentenced the accused to the period
already undergone.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused were
involved in preparing fake certificates and conviction by both the
Courts below is in accordance with law.
9. To attract an offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal
Code, a person should have committed forgery intending that the
document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The
requirement is commission of forgery. There is no evidence adduced
by the prosecution to say that any of the certificates which were
seized were forged by these accused 1 to 5. The case of the
prosecution is that A7 was a Calligrapher who was writing on the
(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 485
certificates. However, A6 and A7 died during the pendency of the
appeal and the case was abated against them.
10. Since none of the certificates which were found in possession
of the accused were sent to any hand writing expert to determine
whether any of the accused had forged the said certificates, the
conviction under Section 468 cannot be maintained. Accordingly,
the accused are acquitted under Section 468 of the Indian Penal
Code.
11. Insofar as Section 473 of the Indian Penal code is concerned,
any person making or being in possession of a counterfeit seal or
plate or other instrument, is guilty of the offence under Section 473.
Counterfeit seals and instruments were not found with A1 to A3 and
A5 but seized from A4. Accordingly, A1 to A3 and A5 are acquitted
for the offence under Section 473 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. However, the conviction as against A4 is maintained under
Section 473 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. Admittedly, all the accused were in possession of fake
certificates. The argument of the learned counsel that intention
cannot be inferred from mere possession of the certificates, is not
acceptable. When the certificates are in such large numbers
intention to fraudulently and dishonestly use such certificates as
genuine is apparent. The very possession of certificates in such
large numbers is enough for the Court to conclude their intention of
using such documents for fraudulent purposes.
14. Recovery was effected from these accused. However, not even
a single witness is examined during the course of investigation to
whom the certificates were sold or the persons' whose names are
found on many of the certificates. No reasons are given as to why
the prosecution failed to examine any persons who had allegedly
approached these accused for the purpose of purchasing
certificates. Needless to say that even if any person had utilized the
services of the accused for taking fake certificate would not venture
to state before Police or the Court that they have obtained false
certificates.
15. As seen from the record, the accused have not contributed to
delay in investigation or Trial. The offence is of the year 1998, nearly
26 years have passed. Keeping in view the observation of the
Honourable Supreme Court in V.K.Varma's case, and the fact that
delay was caused in the Courts, this Court deems it appropriate to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already
undergone. Justice has been delayed for whatever reasons.
16. The accused A1 to A3 and A5 shall pay enhanced fine of
Rs.25,000/- each for the offence under Section 474 of the Indian
Penal code. Accused No.4 shall pay Rs.25,000/-for each of the
offences under Section 473 and 474 of the Indian Penal code,
totaling to Rs.50,000/-. In the absence of payment of fine within a
period of one month from the date of this order, the revision
petitioners shall undergo default sentence of six months.
17. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are partly
allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 28.02.2024
Note: Issue CC by today.
B/o.tk
