Probation of Offenders Act Not Applicable In Serious Offences Like Job Fraud: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can't be given in cases when a person secures a government job through fraud by misusing another individual's educational certificate. The Court emphasized that such fraudulent act deprives another person of public employment.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The petitioner/accused had used the certificate of Mohan Singh to secure the employment. In this manner, he deprives a person of getting public employment and secured the employment which he would not have done but for the deception practiced by him”.

Background Facts:

The case arose when a complaint was filed by Jagjit Singh against the accused, Babu Ram. The complainant alleged that the accused had used someone else's school certificate to apply for a government teacher job. According to the complaint, the accused had cleared his matriculation examination in 1959 in the third division from Government High School Rakkar. After completing his studies, he worked in Khaddar Bhandar, where he allegedly stole the certificate of Mohan Singh, who had passed the matriculation examination in the second division in 1963.

The police then registered an FIR against the accused based on the complaint. After investigation, the police recorded statements of several witnesses, prepared a chargesheet and filed it before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court charged the accused with the offence of cheating, impersonation and using false documents. However, the accused pleaded not guilty, and the matter went to trial.

During the Trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses to support its case. Mohan Singh, whose certificate was allegedly misused, stated that he had worked with the accused at Khaddar Bhandar and that his matriculation certificate had gone missing.

However, the accused in his defence, denied all charges. He stated that he had passed matriculation from Government High School, Gandhar. He admitted working with Mohan Singh but stated that he completed teacher training in 1973 from Solan using his own educational documents. He further stated that the complaint was false and was filed by the complainant as there was dispute going on between parties.

Trial Court's Findings:

The Trial Court observed that Mohan Singh was born on 1st May 1944 and appeared for his matriculation exam in 1963, scoring 432 marks. In contrast, the accused was born on 12th December 1942. This established that the two were distinct individuals. The Trial Court concluded that the accused had used Mohan Singh's certificate to fraudulently secure a government job.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. However, the Sessions Court upheld the Trial Court's findings and stated that the accused had used the matriculation certificate of Mohan Singh to procure the job. A departmental inquiry had been conducted against him, and he was found guilty.

Aggrieved by the decision of both Trial Court and Sessions Court, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the High Court stating that the Courts below had not appreciated material on record in proper perspective.

Contentions:

The accused contended that there was a land dispute between him and the complainant and the complaint was filed against the accused out of personal enmity.

He further stated that the police did not produce the character verification report that is usually prepared when someone joins government service. The prosecution failed to prove that he had submitted Mohan Singh's certificates to get the job.

He emphasized that as per the detailed plan prepared during land partition proceedings between him and the complainant, his name was recorded as Babu Ram or Mohan Singh which means that they are the same. Therefore, he contended that this makes the entire prosecution case false that Mohan Singh and Babu Ram are two different persons.

He contended that the prosecution relied upon the photocopies of the documents without proving the original. The photocopies were not admissible in evidence.

He further submitted that he should have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and requested the Court to set aside the lower Courts' judgments.

In response, the state submitted that no objections were raised during the trial regarding the use of photocopies, so the accused could not challenge them for the first time during the revision. It submitted that it was clearly established on record that the accused had used Mohan Singh's certificates to obtain a government job.

The State further emphasized that the claim of the accused being known as "Babu Ram or Mohan Singh" was not supported by any credible record. The difference in dates of birth between the accused and Mohan Singh confirmed they were two separate individuals.

It stated that the petitioner had committed the offence after due deliberation. He secured public employment by impersonation. Such an offence is serious and a deterrent sentence must be imposed. The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted in such offences.

Findings:

The High Court stated that In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003), the Supreme Court held that “an objection to the admissibility of the evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. When secondary evidence is being led and no objection is raised, the same is deemed to be waived and cannot be taken during the appeal”.

In this case, the High Court noted that no objections were raised by the accused during the trial, regarding the photocopied documents. Since the accused did not raise any timely objections when the documents were presented, the Court held that they could not later claim the evidence was inadmissible.

The High Court rejected the argument that there was no proof that the accused used Mohan Singh's documents to get the job. It noted that an inquiry was conducted, which clearly concluded that Babu Ram and Mohan Singh were two different individuals, and that the accused had used a false certificate to secure employment.

The High Court noted that it was submitted by the accused that the verification record of the accused was not produced. However, this will not make any difference. The High Court must see the evidence placed before it and is not bound by any verification made by a third person. Therefore, the verification record, even if produced, would not have made any difference.

The High Court remarked that the accused misrepresented himself to be Mohan Singh and served as a teacher. He led the State to employ him based on the representation that he was Mohan Singh. Therefore, he was rightly held guilty of the commission of offence of impersonating another person, cheating the government and fraudulently securing a government job.

Thus, the High Court concluded that the offence of using another person's certificate is heinous as this deprives another person of getting employment. Hence, the Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can't be granted.

Case Name: Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.196 of 2012

Date of Decision: 15.05.2025

For the Appellant : Mr Rajneesh Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with M/s Dinkar

Bhaskar and Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocates.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order