LexA.S. KRISHNAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
')
A
A.S. KRISHNAN AND ANR:
v.
-
~
ST A TE OF KERA LA
·~
MARCH 17, 2004
B
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.]
.,
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 471 & 420 rlw section 34-Criminal
{
conspiracy entered into by a doctor and his son in forging the pre-degree
')
mark.sheets with the help of Assistant Registrar for obtaining admission in
c medical college on merit basis-71-ial Court acquitting the Assistant Registrar
as forgery against him was not proved and convicting the doctor and his son
for utilising forged documents-High Court confirming the conviction and
sentence-Correctness of-Held, a person using a forged document with
knowledge and intention can be convicted under section ~71 /PC-On facts
D and evidence, they had knowledge and reason to believe that the mark sheets
were forged documents-Hence conviction upheld-Probation of Offenders
r
Act, 1958.
Appellant No. 2 - doctor entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge
y
the mark sheets of the two years pre-degree examinations of his son,
E appellant No. I with the help of two other co-accused A-3 and A-4. A-4,
an Assistant Registrar, procured a blank mark list form, got the
impression of the facsimile signature of the Controller of Examinations
(PW I) and the University Emblem seal affixed on the blank mark list,
wrote higher marks in his own handwriting in the mark list form and
F
forged the initials of the concerned section assistant. A-4 further attested
a true copy of the forged mark list with his designation and seal and gave
them to the appellants. Appellant No. 2 utilised the forged mark sheets in
obtaining admission for appellant No. 1 in first year MBBS course in a
·'
medical college on merit basis. All the accused were charged for offences
under sections 1208, 466, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The
G trial court convicted both the appellants under sections 471, 420, 120B and
201 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to them to suffer different
imprisonment of different terms under different sections. However, the
appellants were acquitted for offences under sections 467 and 468 IPC.
A-3 and A-4 were acquitted as the prosecution has failed to establish the
H
charge against them. High Court set aside the convictions under section
44
A.S. KRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERA LI\
45
1208 and 201 !PC and confirmed the conviction under sections 471 and A
.,,...
420 read with section 34 !PC. The custodial sentence was reduced to three
months each for each of the offences.
In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that the conviction
cannot be maintained against them after the acquittal of A-3 and A-4 by
B
the trial court; that the mark sheets and their true copies obtained from
A-4 were never suspected or doubted by them for its correctness; that the
mark sheets are not forged documents; that section 34 !PC cannot be
applied to them since no conspiracy or common intention have been fonnd;
that they were acquitted of the charges under sections 201, 467 and 468
IPC; that the mark sheets cannot be forged documents since the charges c
of forgery by A-4 were not established; and that appellant No. I should
be given the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as he was
aged about 17 years when the incident took place.
The respondent State contended that I.here were cogent evidence to
~
show that appellant No. 1 had received the actual and original mark sheets D
from his college; that appellant No. 1 has not applied for revaluation in
the second year; that the appellants had knowledge about the forgery of
-I
mark sheets at the time signing the declaration in the application form;
that it was conceded before the High Court that the mark sheets were
forged documents; that even if A-3 and A-4 have been acquitted and E
conspiracy had not been established, charge under section 471 !PC against
the appellants does not get affected.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It was clearly conceded before the High Court that D-4 F
was a forged document. What was urged before the High Court was that
)<
even if it is forged, the appellants had not used it deliberately or
intentionally as a forged document. A comparison of the mark sheet filed
by A-1 with the marks register shows great variance. The High Court has
noticed that the appellants had asked for revaluation of the first year pre-
degree answer sheets as they were not satisfied with the marks shown in G
the mark list and clExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.