Skip to content


Bhausaheb Kalu Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 204 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC80; 1980CriLJ1312
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 30, 465, 467 and 471
AppellantBhausaheb Kalu Patil
RespondentThe State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
criminal - probation - sections 30, 405, 465, 467, 471 and 511 of indian penal code, 1860 and sections 4 and 6 of probation of offenders act, 1958 - appeal filed against order of conviction for offence under sections 417 and 420 read with section 511 of code - two certificates found to have been forged by appellant to get admission in arts and commerce college affiliated to pune university could not be described as valuable security within meaning of section 30 of code - conviction altered under section 471 read with section 405 of code - matter remanded to trial court to consider as provided in section 6 of act to consider whether appellant be given benefit of probation of good conduct under section 4 of act. - indian penal code, 1890 section 149: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar..........under sections 417, 420 read with section 511 and section 471 read with section 467 of the indian penal code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for those offences. having heard counsel for both sides we do not find any reason to disturb the order of conviction in respect of offences under sections 417 and 420 read with section 511 but as regards the offence under section 471 read with section 467, i.p.c. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the arts and commerce college affiliated to poona university could be described as 'valuable security' as the expression is defined in section 30 of the indian penal code. we, therefore, alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under section 471.....
Judgment:

A.C. Gupta, J.

1. The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 511 and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for those offences. Having heard counsel for both sides we do not find any reason to disturb the order of conviction in respect of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 511 but as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467, I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts and Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as 'valuable security' as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the sentences passed against the appellant and remit the matter to the trial court to consider, as provided in Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, whether the appellant should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the said Act. If the trial court does not find it expedient to release the appellant on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of that Act, it should then pass proper sentences on the appellant for the offences of which the appellant has been found guilty. The fine imposed on the appellant, if paid, shall be refunded. The appeal is disposed of as above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //