Tulsibhai Jivabhai Changani Vs. State of Gujarat
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1104 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3775 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 411 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3775 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 411 of 1999)
Petitioner: Tulsibhai Jivabhai Changani
Respondent: State of Gujarat
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1104 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3775 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 411 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3775 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 411 of 1999)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 12, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. K.L.Janjani, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh and Mr. Jaman K, Bhan-deri, Advocates for the Appellant.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Anu Sawhney, Advocates for the Re-spondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 420,471,198- Admission in Polytechnic obtained on basis of marksheet, which was false – Accused found to be aware of marksheet to be incorrect – Using as genuine. Held, that convic-tion under the offences was proper. Sentence, however, reduced to already undergone, as record good and married. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against an order dated 29th August, 2000.
3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 9th September, 1996 the appellant has been convicted and sen-tenced for offences under Sections 198, 420 and 471 I.P.C. on the ground that he knew that a Marksheet produced by him was false and still he used that Marksheet for gaining admission to Poly-technic Course in 1986. The trial court whilst convicting the appellant has noted that it was not proved that the Marksheet had been forged by the appellant. The trial court, however, held that there was a possibility that the appellant had either himself or through somebody else got the Marksheet amended. The trial court found that the appellant was aware that this was not the correct Marksheet and had still used it to gain admission. The trial court, therefore, convicted the appellant as set out above. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant. A revision was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court by the impugned judgment refused to interfere. It dismissed the revi-sion. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. In our view it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant used the duplicate certificate with changes, as a true certificate knowing it to be false in material particular and thereby got admission. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the conviction. However, look-ing to the nature of the offence and the fact that the appel-lant’s past and present records has been good and the fact that he has already lost his career and is now married, we reduce the sentence to that already undergone. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against an order dated 29th August, 2000.
3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 9th September, 1996 the appellant has been convicted and sen-tenced for offences under Sections 198, 420 and 471 I.P.C. on the ground that he knew that a Marksheet produced by him was false and still he used that Marksheet for gaining admission to Poly-technic Course in 1986. The trial court whilst convicting the appellant has noted that it was not proved that the Marksheet had been forged by the appellant. The trial court, however, held that there was a possibility that the appellant had either himself or through somebody else got the Marksheet amended. The trial court found that the appellant was aware that this was not the correct Marksheet and had still used it to gain admission. The trial court, therefore, convicted the appellant as set out above. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant. A revision was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court by the impugned judgment refused to interfere. It dismissed the revi-sion. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. In our view it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant used the duplicate certificate with changes, as a true certificate knowing it to be false in material particular and thereby got admission. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the conviction. However, look-ing to the nature of the offence and the fact that the appel-lant’s past and present records has been good and the fact that he has already lost his career and is now married, we reduce the sentence to that already undergone. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
