2004 (3) TMI 797 - SC - Indian Laws

Manipulation of the mark sheets - Forgery and use of forged documents - Criminal conspiracy - Knowledge and reason to believe - Sentencing and application of the Probation of Offenders Act - HELD THAT - For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reason to believe that the document to be a forged one. Whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the document in question to be a forged has to be adjudicated on the basis of materials and the finding recorded in that regard is essentially factual. Acquittal of some of the co-accused from the charge of conspiracy cannot really affect the accusations u/s 471 IPC. In Madan Lal v. The State of Punjab 1967 (4) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT two persons were tried for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 409, 465, 477-A and 120B IPC. Though the accusations under Section 120B were set aside, the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 409 simpliciter. A contention was raised before this Court that if the charge relating to criminal breach of trust was along with the charge of conspiracy, conviction simpliciter for criminal breach of trust would not be valid. This Court held that if the charge of conspiracy is followed by substantive charge of another offence there is nothing to prevent the Court convicting an accused for the substantive charge even if the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, we find that the High Court has already taken a liberal view so far as A-2 is concerned. In a case when students use forged mark sheets to obtain admission thereby depriving eligible candidates to get seats and that too to a medical course and a doctor is involved in the whole operation, uncalled for leniency or undue sympathy will be misplaced and actually result in miscarriage of justice. Such types of crimes deserve as a matter of fact, deterrent punishment in the larger interests of society. If at all, the case calls for severe punishment. We find no substance in the plea relating to sentence or extending the benefits of the Probation Act. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Forgery and use of forged documents.
2. Criminal conspiracy.
3. Knowledge and reason to believe.
4. Sentencing and application of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Summary:

1. Forgery and Use of Forged Documents:
The appellants, A-1 and A-2, were accused of manipulating mark sheets to secure admission for A-1 in a medical college. The prosecution alleged that A-4, an Assistant Registrar, procured a blank mark list and forged higher marks for A-1. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty u/s 471, 420, 120B, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them of charges u/s 467 and 468 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction u/s 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC but set aside the conviction u/s 120B and 201 IPC, reducing the custodial sentence to three months each.

2. Criminal Conspiracy:
The defense argued that the acquittal of A-3 and A-4, who were primarily responsible for the forgery, should lead to the acquittal of A-1 and A-2. However, the court noted that the essential ingredients of Section 471 IPC were met, as the appellants used the forged document knowing it to be forged. The High Court's analysis showed that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of the forgery, as evidenced by the discrepancies in the mark sheets and the implausibility of the marks shown.

3. Knowledge and Reason to Believe:
The court emphasized that "knowledge" and "reason to believe" are crucial under IPC. The appellants' awareness of the forgery was evident from the circumstances, such as the impossible marks shown in the forged document and the date discrepancies. The court held that the appellants had both the knowledge and reason to believe that the document was forged before using it.

4. Sentencing and Application of the Probation of Offenders Act:
The appellants sought leniency under the Probation of Offenders Act, arguing that A-1 was a minor at the time of the offense. The court rejected this plea, stating that using forged documents to gain admission to a medical course, thereby depriving eligible candidates, warrants deterrent punishment. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld, emphasizing that leniency in such cases would result in a miscarriage of justice.