Tripura High Court
Shri Sukhendra Deb vs The State Of Tripura on 8 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
Shri Sukhendra Deb
------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
---- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl.PP.
Date of hearing : 11.12.2020
Date of pronouncement : 08.01.2021
Yes No
Whether fit for reporting :
√
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Judgment & Order
[1] This Criminal Revision Petition is directed
against the judgment dated 03.05.2014 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal
Appeal No.44(3) of 2013 whereby learned Sessions Judge
has upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner
under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC
hereunder) while setting aside his conviction and sentence
under Section 468, IPC.
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
[2] The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are
as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as a rifle-man in
the 1st battalion of Tripura State Rifles(TSR) on
30.04.1988 and for securing such appointment he
submitted School transfer certificate No.88 of 1986 dated
07.01.1986[Exbt.6] issued by the Headmaster, Kamalghat
High School, Agartala. After serving in the 1st Battalion of
TSR for about 15 years, the petitioner joined the 2 nd
Battalion of TSR on 13.04.2003. He got several promotions
during this period of service. On 06.10.2006 the Deputy
Commandant of 2nd Battalion, TSR sent the said school
transfer certificate dated 07.01.1986 of the petitioner to
Kamalghat High School for verification of its genuineness.
In reply dated 18.10.2006, the Headmaster, Kamalghat
High School informed the Commandant, 2nd Battalion TSR
that the said transfer certificate was duly verified and on
verification it was found that such certificate was never
issued from Kamalghat High School. Vide memo dated
25.11.2006 disciplinary proceedings were then drawn up
against the petitioner on the charge of submitting a forged
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
certificate with regard to educational qualifications etc. for
securing Government job and at the end of Proceedings,
vide order dated 21.03.2007 the petitioner was dismissed
from service. On the same day i.e. on 21.03.2007, Deputy
Commandant of the 2nd Battalion, TSR, who held the
inquiry in the Departmental Proceedings, lodged a written
FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Bodhjungnagar P.S against
the petitioner alleging that the petitioner procured the job
as a rifleman in TSR by submitting a false certificate with
regard to his educational qualification.
[3] Based on this FIR, Bodhjungnagar P.S. Case
No.07 of 2007 under Sections 471 and 417 of IPC was
registered against the petitioner and investigation was
taken up.
[4] Shri Asesh Debbarma, Sub-Inspector of Police
[PW-6] conducted the investigation and his investigation
revealed that the petitioner used a forged certificate as
genuine for getting employment in TSR and thereby
committed offence punishable under Sections 471 and
417, IPC. On completion of investigation, he submitted
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
charge-sheet No.07 of 2007 dated 20.04.2007 against the
petitioner in the jurisdictional court at Agartala.
[5] Having considered the prosecution papers,
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of
offence punishable under Sections 471 and 417, IPC and
issued notice to the accused to face the trial.
[6] The trial commenced with framing of charges
against the petitioner under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed trial.
[7] On the side of the prosecution, 6 witnesses
were examined. Among them PW-1 Suresh Kaloi who
lodged the FIR was the Deputy Commandant of TSR. PW-2
Sudarshan Chakraborty was a Subedar in TSR at the time
of occurrence. PW-3, Shri Pradip Malakar was the Nayek
Subedar in TSR. PW-4 Smt. Sapna Das(Bal) was the
Headmistress who issued the verification report of the
school transfer certificate of the petitioner and PW-5
Apurba Das was the Subedar in 9th Battalion of TSR. PW-6
is the Investigating Officer of the case. Apart from the
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
ocular testimony of these witnesses, the prosecution relied
on 8 documents to prove the case. After the recording of
the prosecution evidence was concluded, the petitioner
was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C and his
statement was recorded by the learned Trial Court. The
petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed that the charge
was foisted on him.
[8] On appreciation of evidence, the learned CJM,
West Tripura, Agartala convicted the petitioner under
Section 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation for having committed
offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and RI for 2
years for having committed offence punishable under
Section 471 IPC and it was ordered that both the
sentences would run concurrently. The Judgment and
order of the learned Trial Court was challenged before the
learned Sessions Judge in appeal. The learned Sessions
Judge by the impugned judgment set aside the conviction
and sentence of the petitioner under Section 468 IPC but
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 471,
IPC.
Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition.
[9] I have heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.Ghosh, learned
Additional PP, appearing for the State respondent.
[10] Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.Acharjee,
learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge
did not appreciate the fact that there was no proof that the
alleged School Transfer Certificate[Exbt.6] issued by
Kamalghat High School was actually submitted by the
petitioner to his appointing authority at the time of his
appointment. Further submission on behalf of the
petitioner is that at the time of his appointment he
submitted the School Certificate issued from Gopalnagar
High School where he actually studied and he had no
knowledge about any certificate issued from Kamalghat
High School. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel of
the petitioner, after the petitioner served for more than 19
years and got several promotions on the basis of his
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
performance in the service and repeated scrutiny of
records, a conspiracy was made against him to prevent
him from getting further promotions and as a result of
such conspiracy he was dismissed from service. It is
further argued by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel that a
candidate who passed standard VIII, was eligible for
appointment as a rifleman in TSR and during the
Departmental proceedings against the petitioner, his
appointing authority procured report from the Tripura
Board of Secondary Education which confirmed that the
petitioner was a candidate for Madhyamik examination in
the year of his appointment. There was, therefore, no
reason for him to submit a false certificate with regard to
his educational qualification. It is also submitted by
Mr.Acharjee, learned counsel that the school authority of
Gopal Nagar High School also confirmed that petitioner
was a candidate of Madhyamik examination from Gopal
Nagar High School. Despite having such confirmation, the
department dismissed him from service and lodged FIR
against him without verifying whether he actually
submitted the school transfer certificate from Kamalghat
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
High School. Further submission of Mr. Acharjee, learned
counsel is that during the investigation of the case, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet merely on
the basis of the documents submitted by the appointing
authority of the petitioner. He never enquired as to
whether the petitioner actually procured the alleged
certificate from Kamalghat High School and submitted it to
his appointing authority. No investigation was also made
to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the petitioner that
he actually submitted such certificate from Goal Nagar
High School. Learned counsel of the petitioner has also
attributed biasness to PW-1, because, according to learned
counsel, he being the Inquiry Officer in the Disciplinary
Proceedings against the petitioner should not have lodged
the FIR against the petitioner. According to Mr. Acharjee,
learned counsel, these facts were never considered by the
learned Sessions Judge in appeal. Learned counsel,
therefore, urges the court to set aside the impugned
judgment.
[11] On the contrary Mr. S.Ghosh, learned Additional
PP submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
judgment because the fact that the petitioner submitted a
false school transfer certificate as genuine for getting a
government job has been well proved and therefore, there
is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment with
regard to his conviction and sentence under Section 471,
IPC.
[12] Among the witnesses examined by the
prosecution, PW-1 is Suresh Kaloi who is the first
informant. In his examination-in-chief it is stated by the
PW that he was the Deputy Commandant of 2nd battalion
of TSR when the FIR [Exbt.1] was lodged by him.
According to the PW the accused petitioner joined the 1 st
battalion of TSR as a rifleman and later he came to the 2 nd
battalion on 13.04.2003. The School Transfer Certificate
[Exbt.6] submitted by him at the time of his appointment
was sent to Kamalghat high school for verification and the
verification report revealed that the certificate was false
and for this reason departmental proceedings were held
against him and after the conclusion of the departmental
proceedings, he lodged an FIR against the accused
petitioner. His cross examination is very significant. In his
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
cross examination it was stated by the PW that he was the
Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings held
against the accused in which the accused was found guilty
and resultantly he was dismissed from service and after
his dismissal the PW filed the FIR against him. According
to the PW he did not have any idea as to who wrote the
attestation form at the time of appointment of the
accused. He further stated that he had no personal
knowledge about the service record of the accused and he
did not know whether the accused actually submitted the
School Certificate issued by the Kamalghat high school. He
denied the suggestion of the accused that the transfer
certificate issued from Gopalnagar High School was
intentionally withheld by the prosecution. It was also
admitted by the PW that the accused had made a prayer
for appointment of one Shri Sudip Nag as his defence
assistant in the departmental proceeding which was turned
down by the PW. The PW was not sure whether the
attestation form was submitted by the accused himself.
[13] PW-2, Sudarshan Chakraborty was a Subedar
Accountant of the 5th Battalion of TSR. According to him
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
the accused joined in the 1st Battalion of TSR in 1988 as a
rifle man and in 2007 he became Havildar in the 2nd
Battalion when PW-1 Suresh Kaloi was a Deputy
Commandant of the 2nd battalion. According to him the
investigating officer seized the verification report of the
school transfer certificate of the accused in his presence
and he signed the seizure list as a witness. In his cross
examination he said that he had no idea as to whether the
Commandant of 2nd Battalion of TSR where accused used
to work wanted the accused to issue a receipt of goods
without actually receiving such goods. He also stated that
he had no idea as to whether a false case was lodged
against the accused.
[14] PW-3, Pradip Malakar was a Nayek Subedar of
TSR. According to the PW, the accused submitted a forged
school certificate at the time of joining in service which
was proved to be false. Investigating officer seized the
certificate in his presence during investigation and he
signed the seizure list as a witness.
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
[15] PW-4 is Smt. Sapna Das(Bal) was the
Headmistress of the Kamalghat Higher Secondary School
in 2006. According to the PW, she worked in Kamalghat
High School from 1997 to 2007. During that period she
issued a verification report dated 18.10.2006[Exbt.4]
wherein it was stated that the School Transfer Certificate
[Exbt.6] of the petitioner was not issued from Kamalghat
High School because the signature of the Headmaster
namely Shri Kalipada Bhattacharjee appearing on the
certificate did not match the signatures of Shri
Bhattacharjee appearing on the other school records.
Moreover, the name of the accused did not also appear in
the school admission register.
[16] PW-5, Shri Apruba Das was a Subedar in the
2nd Battalion of TSR. According to him, when the accused
was a Havildar in the 2nd battalion of TSR, informant was
the Deputy Commandant of the battalion. According to the
PW the accused was dismissed from service since his
school transfer certificate was found forged in verification.
It was stated by the PW that during investigation of the
case, the said certificate, appointment letter of the
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
accused and other documents were seized in his presence
and he signed the seizure list as a witness. The PW
categorically stated that during the Departmental
Proceedings against the accused, he specifically stated that
he did not read in Kamalghat High School. It was also
stated by the PW that the accused told the name of some
other school and the PW could not recollect the name of
that school. In his cross examination, the PW denied that
he deposed falsely as per instruction of the Commandant
of the battalion.
[17] PW-6 Asesh Debbarma, Sub-Inspector of Police
is the Investigating Officer of the case. According to the
PW he visited Kamalghat High School and examined the
Headmistress [PW-4] of the school. He also seized the
verification report [Exbt.4] issued from the school and on
the basis of his investigation submitted a charge sheet
against the accused. The PW admitted in cross
examination that he did not try to ascertain exactly in
which school the accused actually studied.
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
[18] The learned trial court did not accept the
submissions of the learned defence counsel that the School
Transfer Certificate issued from Kamalghat High School
[Exbt.6] was never submitted by the petitioner. In this
regard the learned trial court held that in the relevant
column of the Attestation Form [Exbt.7] submitted by the
petitioner at the time of his appointment, it was clearly
mentioned that he passed standard VIII from Kamalghat
High School in the year 1986. The relevant findings of the
learned Trial Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment are as
follows:
"12.In course of hearing of argument the
learned Senior Advocate drawn attention of
this court and submitted that the
prosecution in this case could not prove
that the accused submitted the said
transfer certificate [Exbt.6] and the
attestation form[Exbt.8] was not filed by
the accused and further stated that the
accused Sukhendra Deb was not the
student of Kamalghat Higher Secondary
School at any time rather he was a student
of Gopalnagar High School. As per official
rules the incumbent concerned is to submit
the attestation form at the time of
employment after getting offer. Here in this
case Exhibit.7(attestation form) alleged to
have submitted by the accused and also on
perusal of Exhibit.7/1 it is clear that in the
attestation form it was mentioned that the
accused was a student of Kamalghat High
School and he reads in that school in the
year,1986 having qualification class 'VIII'
passed which according to P.W.4 was not
issued from the concerned school. Had the
accused be a student of that school in that
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
case the Admission Register would have
speak that the transfer certificate was
issued from the concerned school. There is
no evidence on record that the accused was
a student of Gopalnagar High School at any
point of time submitted by the alleged
accused. It is also not disputed that the
accused person did never serve under TSR.
So for non production of said Kalipada
Bhattacharjee as per deposition of PW.4 it
cannot be said that the prosecution case
has become doubtful. So with folded hand I
cannot agree with the submission of the
learned Senior Advocate that the
prosecution case has become failed and the
accused did not submit the attestation form
in course of his employment and he also at
the time of procuring the employment did
not submit Exhibit. 6, the alleged transfer
certificate before the Authority. Thus from
the discussions made above it appears to
me that the prosecution in this case has
been able to prove the charge lebeled
against the accused and as such, the
aforesaid points are decided in affirmative
in favour of the prosecution of this case.
The accused also relied upon the Exhibit
A(in three sheets) and on perusal of the
said document it appears to me that the
same does not exonerate the accused
person from the liability of criminal
prosecution.
In this case charge is framed under Section
468/471 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused. Section 468 of the Indian
Penal Code disclose the offence of forgery
for purpose of cheating and Section 471 of
the Indian Penal Code discloses the offence
of using as genuine a forged document.
In the case at hand, from the evidence of
the prosecution it appears that the alleged
accused submitted forged document, i.e.
Exhibit.6 for the purpose of procuring
employment and also failed to prove that
the same to be genuine one and as such he
is liable to convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 468/471 of the
Indian Penal Code. Thus the aforesaid
points are decided in affirmative in favour
of the prosecution of this case."
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
[19] The learned Sessions Judge in appeal held that
since the forgery of the School Transfer Certificate
[Exbt.6] was not proved against the accused petitioner,
conviction and sentence under Section 468 IPC was not
tenable and accordingly conviction and sentence of the
accused under Section 468,IPC was set aside. In so far as
his conviction and sentence under Section 471, IPC is
concerned, the learned Sessions Judge held that it was
proved against the accused that he used the forged
document [Exbt.6] as genuine for the purpose of obtaining
the benefit of employment knowing the document to be
false or forged and accordingly his conviction and sentence
under Section 471, IPC was upheld. The relevant findings
of the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 7&8 of the
impugned judgment are as under:
"7. Obviously the appellant was taken in service
on the basis of the Transfer Certificate in
question. So, just saying that he did not submit it
cannot be accepted. It would be logical to raise
the question that who else could have filed a
Certificate in his name for the purpose of
appointment. Secondly, his story that he was a
student of Gopalnagar High School would have
been believable if he could file any document in
that regard. His simple statement or oral
evidence on the point cannot negate the specific
documentary evidence i.e. the Transfer
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
Certificate of Kamalghat High School in his name.
Thus, there is no fault in the findings of the
learned Court below that the Certificate in
question was forged and that the accused
submitted it to the TSR Authority for the purpose
of securing the job. But it is not proved that he
himself forged the document. In this regard it
needs mention that to prove the charge under
Section 468 IPC against him the prosecution is
required to prove that the forgery was made in
his hand. Admittedly, prosecution failed to
adduce any such evidence. Consequently, the
learned Court below committed error in
recording the conviction under Section 468 IPC
against the appellant. The requirement of
Section 471 IPC is that of using a forged
document as genuine for the purpose of
obtaining some benefit knowing it to be false or
forged. In this regard it is immaterial as to who
caused the forgery. Knowledge of the accused
that it was or forged is sufficient. Accused knew
very well that he did not read in Kamalghat High
School but he submitted the Certificate of that
School as one of its students. Use of the
document as genuine knowing it to be false was
thus well proved.
8. For the reasons stated above, conviction
recorded under Section 468 IPC and the sentence
inflicted under that section is quashed and set
aside. But the conviction under Section 471 IPC is
upheld. Learned Court below in para 14 of the
judgment has considered why the learned Court
did not extend the benefit of Sections 3 or 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act to the convict and
the reason given is justified. Thus, the
punishment imposed is also upheld. Appellant
was never in custody during inquiry,
investigation and trial. So, there is no question of
set-off."
[20] Notably, the learned Sessions Judge by the
impugned judgment set aside the conviction of the
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
accused under Section 468 IPC on the ground that the
forgery of the School Transfer Certificate [Exbt.6] could
not be proved against him. At the same time the learned
Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment held that the
accused used the said school certificate as genuine
knowing it fully well that it was a forged document and on
this ground the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned
judgment upheld his conviction and sentence under
Section 471 IPC.
[21] Now the question which arises for consideration
is whether the accused against whom the charge of
forgery of the questioned document is not proved can be
convicted and sentenced under Section 471 IPC for
dishonestly using such document as genuine knowing it
fully well that it was a forged document. The question has
to be adjudged in the factual background of the case.
Before I do that it would be apposite to reproduce Section
468 and 471 IPC.
Section 468 IPC reads as follows:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery,
intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be
used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
And Section 471 IPC reads as follows:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic
record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to
believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be
punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or
electronic record]."
[22] A bare reading of the two provisions makes it
clear that the offences created under the said provisions
are distinct offences and the person committing the
offence under Section 471 IPC may not always be the
actual forger and therefore, there is no impediment to
convict an accused under Section 471 IPC while acquitting
him of the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. But
in the given case, the only allegation against the petitioner
on the basis of which he was dismissed from service and
later prosecuted in court is that he committed forgery in
respect of the said School Transfer Certificate [Exbt.6]
which was later dishonestly used by him as a genuine
document for which he was prosecuted under Sections 468
and 471 IPC. In such factual back ground of the case,
conviction of the petitioner under Section 471 IPC while
the charge of forgery under Section 468 is not proved
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
against him has been questioned by learned counsel of the
petitioner. The petitioner seems to have taken a consistent
stand that he never studied in Kamalghat High School and
the questioned School Transfer Certificate [Exbt.6] was
never submitted by him. He all along pleaded that he
studied in Gopalnagar High School. It also appears from
the records of the departmental proceeding that the
Disciplinary Authority made an enquiry with the Tripura
Board of Secondary Education about the educational
qualification of the accused and TBSE confirmed that the
petitioner was a candidate of the Madhyamik examination
in the year 1988 while he was in service.
[23] With regard to the Attestation Form[Exbt.7]
allegedly submitted by him, the petitioner in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 30.08.2011
categorically stated in reply to question No.5 that he did
not know how it was written and who wrote it.
[24] Submission of Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel
of the petitioner in this regard is that the learned trial
court should have taken the reply of the accused into
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
consideration in view of the materials placed before it.
According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel, learned trial
court called for the entire record of the Disciplinary
Proceedings vide order dated 17.03.2012 which is as
under:
"17.03.2012
Accused Sukhendra Dey on bail is present by filing
hajira.
Perused the case record.
Today is fixed for DWs. At this stage, the accused has
filed a petition furnishing copy to the prosecution praying for call for
the relevant records of Departmental Proceeding drawn up against
the accused presently lying in thbe office of Commandant, 2nd Bn.
Accused further by the petition prays for calling of the following
documents:-
(1) Judgment passed by DIGP in appeal petition against the
dismissal order filed by Accused Person vide
No.F.128/DAP/OPS-I/07/277-80 dated 30.05.2007;
(2) Dismissal order of Accused passed by the Commandant, 2nd
Bn. TSR.
(3) Entire record of Department Proceeding No.16 of 2006
including Written Objection and time prayer of accused filed
before the authority.
I have heard Learned Counsel of both the sides in
respect of the petition filed by the accused.
This is a case under Sections-468/471, IPC. After
hearing both the sides, it appears to me that if the aforesaid
documents are not called for then there would be chance of
prejudice of the accused in the trial.
So, considering all, for proper adjudication of the case,
the aforesaid documents be called for from the office of the
Commandant, 2nd Bn. TSR, R.K.Nagar, Agartala.
On receipt of the relevant papers, case would be taken
up for recording evidence of defense witnesses.
Let a copy of this order be accordingly sent to the
Commandant, 2nd Bn. TSR, R.K.Nagar, Agartala, for
compliance.
Fix 18.05.12 for order"
[25] It was argued by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel
that the entire records of the Disciplinary Proceeding thus
formed part of the record of the instant case for
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
consideration by the learned trial court. Mr. Acharjee has
referred to letter No.35/1/F.592/Pers/SD/TSR-II/Estt
dated 25.04.2007 of the Commandant 2nd Battalion of TSR
which reads as under:
" Government of Tripura
Office of the Commandant
2nd Bn Tripura State Rifles, R.K.Nagar
(Farm Complex)
P.O.-Khas Noagaon, West Tripura
No.35/1/F.592/Pers/SD/TSR-II/Estt Dated 25th Apr'07
To
The Secretary
Tripura Board of Secondary Education
Agartala, Tripura West
Subject:- Information in respect of Sukhendra Deb S/O Subodh
Chandra Deb Vill: Satdubia, P.S.-Sidhai, West Tripura.
Sir,
GThis is to inform you that No.88010592 Hav(GD) Sukhendra Deb
S/O Subodh Chandra Deb Vill-Satdubia (now dismissed from service) has
claimed that though he got admit card for appearing in Madhyamik
Examination in the year 1988 but he could not sit in the examination from
Gopal Nagar High School, Kalkalia, Sadar, Tripura West, because of non
receipt of permission from the competent authority.
The matter was referred to the Headmaster Gopal Nagar High School
Kalkalia Sadar for verification. The Headmaster, Gopal Nagar High School,
Sadar, Tripura West vide his letter No.F.7(3)-GHS/2003/319 dated
19.03.2007(copy enclosed) has intimated that the said Sukhendra Deb has
appeared in the Madhyamik Examination in the year 1988 by virtue of TBSE
registration No.50617/1986 and Roll No.17606.
In view of the above, you are requested to verify and to intimate if
the dismissed Hav. Of this unit namely Sukhendra Deb has appeared in the
Madhyamik Examination in the year 1988 and if so copies of Admit Card and
mark sheet may kindly be sent. It may also be verified if he has appeared in
the Madhyamik Examination in any subsequent years and if so copies of
Admit Card and Mark sheet may also kindly be sent. This is required for
disposal of an appeal petition submitted by the individual against the
dismissal order.
Yours faithfully,
Enclo:- As above Commandant
2nd Bn Tripura State Rifles
R.K.Nagar, Tripura West"
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
[26] Submission of Mr. Acharjee is that it has
surfaced from the said letter dated 25.04.2007 of the
Commandant that at the time of his appointment in 1988,
the petitioner was a candidate of Madhyamik examination
from Gopalnagar High School which means that he passed
standard VIII from Gopalnagar High School before 1988.
In his cross examination PW-1 categorically stated as
follows:
"It is a fact that the accused stated that he studied
Gopalnagar High School. We do not have any transfer
certificate of the accused from Gopalnagar High School
in this service book or in our record. There was no
inquiry regarding the academic qualification of the
accused from Gopalnagar High School."
[27] Apparently, the above statement of PW-1 that
there was no inquiry regarding the academic qualification
of the accused from Gopal Nagar High School was not true
in view of the letter No.35/1/F.592/Pers/SD/TSR-II/Estt
Dated 25th Apr'07 reproduced herein above which
indicates that the Headmaster of Gopal Nagar High School
informed the Appointing Authority of the petitioner that he
was a candidate of Madhyamik Examination in the year
1988. Therefore, it was crystal clear that the petitioner
studied in Gopal Nagar High School and as such, his plea
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
that he procured School Certificate from Gopal Nagar High
School and submitted it to his Appointing Authority should
not have been brushed aside by the courts below.
[28] Surprisingly, the disciplinary Authority never
made any enquiry with regard to the claim of the
petitioner that he submitted a school transfer certificate
from Gopalnagar High School where he actually studied.
Not even the investigating officer directed his investigation
to ascertain as to whether any certificate was actually
obtained by the accused from Gopalnagar High School and
if so what happened to the certificate. There is merit in the
submission of Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel that the
petitioner had no reason at all to submit a forged
document [Exbt.6] to jeopardize his career when he had
genuine documents in possession with regard to his
educational qualification. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel
has also drawn the attention of this court to the evidence
of PW-1 in his cross examination wherein he has admitted
that no defence assistant was allowed to the petitioner in
the Departmental Proceedings which, according to Mr.
Acharjee, substantiate the defence plea that the petitioner
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
was maliciously prosecuted by his appointing authority. It
has also been argued by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel of
the petitioner that the prosecution case is entirely doubtful
because he was appointed in service in 1988 and he
continued to serve in the TSR till his dismissal in 2007 and
during this period several promotions were also given to
him based on his performance and repeated scrutiny of his
personal records. No such allegation was then raised
against him at any point of time. Even after the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2007
on the charge of forgery the matter was not reported to
police. FIR [Exbt.1] was lodged by the Deputy
Commandant of the 2nd Battalion, TSR only after his
dismissal order in the disciplinary proceeding was issued.
According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel of the
petitioner, this is quite unusual which creates doubt about
the veracity of the prosecution case.
[29] The ratio of the decision dated 05.09.2013 of
the Allahabad High Court in Ramakant Dube vs. State of
UP relied upon by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel of the
petitioner does not, however, apply to this case because
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
the facts of the case and those of the present case are
completely distinguishable.
[30] In view of what is discussed above, the charge
against the accused that he dishonestly submitted the
School Certificate [Exbt.6] to his Appointing Authority at
the time of his appointment knowing that it was a forged
document appears to be quite doubtful and the benefit of
doubt must be given to the petitioner. Resultantly, the
appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment affirming
conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section
471 IPC is set aside.
The accused is on bail and his bail bond stands
discharged.
The case is disposed of. Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma
Crl. Rev. P. 49 of 2014
