Tulsibhai Jivabhai Changani vs State Of Gujarat
- SCC(2001) 1 SCC 719
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused is convicted of using a false document knowing it to be false in material particulars to obtain a benefit (here, admission to a course), the conviction under sections 198, 420, and 471 IPC may be upheld on proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used the document with knowledge of its falsity, even if it is not proved that the accused himself forged or caused the document to be forged. The sentence imposed by the trial court may be reduced on appeal where the offence, though proved, is of a nature that warrants mitigation, particularly where the accused has maintained a good record before and after the offence and has already suffered substantial collateral consequences such as loss of career.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
aL.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted. This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th August, 2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 9th September, 1996 the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced 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 Polytechnic 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 Revision. Hence this Appeal. 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 looking to the nature of the offence and the fact that the Appellant'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 under gone. The Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free