http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1104 2000

PETITIONER: TULSIBHAI JIVABHAI CHANGANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/12/2000

BENCH: M.B.Saha, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

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