State of H.P vs Smt. Shershtha Pathania

Surinder Singh, J.—State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondent passed by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.

Heard and gone through the evidence on record.

(i). Respondent was put on trial on the allegations that on 7.5.1989, she was appointed as part-time Contingent Water Carrier-cum-Peon-cum Chowkidar in the Directorate of Education Shimla and after being appointed, on 18.5.1989, she was posted in the Vocational Branch. At the time of her appointment, she was directed to produce attested copies of educational qualification, the document in support of her date of birth along with the character certificate from a Gazetted officer. Accordingly, she is alleged to have furnished the School Leaving certificate issued by "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School" Sadarthana Delhi, wherein her date of birth was shown as 17.4.1958 and shown to have passed middle standard.

(ii). On 27.6.1990 the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C) recommended the Respondent to be promoted to the post of peon. For a candidate to be eligible for promotion, the age should not exceed 32 years and the minimum educational qualification was middle standard. Thus, the aforesaid documents produced by the Respondent made her eligible for the said post.

(iii). After about four years, i.e., in the year 1993, the Director of Education received a complaint that the Respondent had submitted wrong certificates with respect to her date of birth showing it to be 17.4.1958 instead of 6.1.1949 as shown in the Government Primary School Baduhi Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. where she was initially admitted and studied up to 3rd standard. Thus the inquiry was initiated to ascertain the allegations leveled against the Respondent. The preliminary inquiry found some substance in the complaint. On the basis of the preliminary findings, the matter was referred by the Director of Education to the Superintendent of Police (Enforcement, Shimla for further investigation.

(iv). The Enforcement Department conducted further detailed inquiry. During such inquiry, the School leaving certificate issued by the Principal "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School" Sadarthana Delhi was sent for verification to the Director of Education, Delhi, but it could not be verified for the reason that the said School had already been closed. The Enforcement Officer, during the inquiry found that the Respondent had studied in Government Primary School Baduhi Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra w.e.f. 10.1.1955 to 21.11.1956 and left the School when she was in 3rd standard. The date of birth at that time was different from the date of birth given in the alleged certificate issued by the Principal "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School" Sadarthana Delhi, as such the FIR was registered for the offences aforesaid. Finding the involvement of the Respondent for producing the false and fabricated record to the Director Education with respect to her age and qualification, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondent.

Respondent was accordingly charge sheeted for the offences aforesaid but she abjured her guilt and claimed trial.

To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and Respondent was also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, No. evidence in defence was led.

At the end of the trial, Respondent was acquitted on the ground that the admission/withdrawal register Ext. PW8/A pertaining to Government Primary School Baduhi is completely mutilated and No. attempt was made by the prosecution even to suggest that the entries qua the Respondent in the said Register are original and authentic. The pages were found torn and irreconcilable. Further, the ingredients of the offences charged are not made out against the Respondent and prosecution could not produce any evidence that the Respondent had sufficient knowledge that the alleged entries with respect to her date of birth produced by her at the time of employment was not genuine or a forged document.

On reconsideration of the matter, I also do not find any evidence on record to show that, at the time of her employment, the Respondent had produced the School leaving certificate ( Ext. PW1/F) issued by Jai Hind Higher Secondary School Sadarthana, Delhi wherein her date of birth is shown to be 17.4.1958 and also having passed the middle standard. It is only PW1 P.C. Sharma who stated that he simply handed over the original complaint on which the inquiry against the Respondent was initiated along with the inquiry report, appointment letter as part time contingent water carrier, date of birth certificate of "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School" Sadarthana, Delhi, the date of birth certificate procured from Primary School Baduhi, the original copy of leave application and photocopy of the letter of the Education Officer vide memo Ext. PW1/A. He did not state anything that it was the Respondent who produced these certificates at the time of her employment when required to submit such certificates nor these certificates were produced by the Respondent to PW1 Administrative Officer of the Directorate of Education. He also admitted that at the time of her appointment as part time water carrier, No. educational qualification or the age was prescribed and also that Respondent was promoted from the said post to the post of peon. He further stated that he did not make any inquiry about the genuineness of the certificate Ext. PW1/F issued by "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School", Sadarthana, Delhi. Pertinently he was unable to say as to who had procured this certificate. He also could not say as to who had obtained the certificate from Baduhi School where the Respondent is alleged to have studied up to 3rd standard.

PW2 is the Joint Director of Education. He stated that at the time of promotion of the Respondent, he was not posted in the Directorate. Even he could not state as to who had produced the disputed certificate. But according to him, it was with the Administrative Officer (PW1) who also failed to prove whether it was the Respondent who produced it at the time of her promotion.

PW3 Ram Lal was the Dealing Assistant in the Establishment Branch of the Education Department. He procured the admission and withdrawal Register from Baduhi School. He admitted that the said Register was not in a good condition. He also did not know as to who had maintained it. PW 8 Babu Ram teacher of Baduhi School has also endorsed this fact and stated that Register aforesaid did not contain any pages nor serial number.

Even PW4 Kamla Thakur was the Senior Clerk at the relevant time also expressed her ignorance about the essential qualification for the post of Peon, including the age. Similar is the statement of PW5 Vijay Kumar. He did not know as to when the Respondent was appointed as part time Water carrier and when she was appointed on regular basis.

PW6 Khem Chand is the witness of record having been taken into possession by the police.

PW7 is Shri Kul Bhushan Kohli is the son of the then Principal "Jai Hind Higher Secondary School", Delhi. He stated that the said school was government-aided, its aid was stopped thus, it was closed w.e.f. 1.5.1970. He further stated that he could identify the signatures of his father. In cross-examination he stated that after its closure he was running private School which was earlier de-recognized. He also stated that its previous record could have been traced had an attempt would have been made. He admitted that form of the certificate and the stamp which are affixed on Ext. PW1/F are available in their School. To a Court question he stated that since it was not a co-ed School, therefore, the certificate Ext. PW1/F is forged one but with the same breath, he stated that the certificate aforesaid was prepared by a lady teacher.

On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence I find that the prosecution evidence is not at all convincing, confidence inspiring and on the top of it, the alleged certificate Ext. PW1/F alleged to have been issued by the Jai Hind Higher Secondary School, Sadarthana, Delhi is not proved beyond doubt to have been furnished/supplied by the Respondent any time particularly at the time of her promotion, as alleged to secure her appointment. As such the acquittal of the Respondent cannot be interfered with. The appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed.

The Respondent is discharged of her bail bonds entered upon by her, at any time during the proceedings of this case.