He was accused of forging a fitness certificate when he was on duty again after medical leave in 1999.
He was accused of forging a fitness certificate when he was on duty again after medical leave in 1999.
A city court has acquitted a canteen manager after 23 years on charges of forging medical certificates.
Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Daga was hearing a criminal appeal filed in 2012 by Dattaram Saldur against a decision passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in November that year.
Mr. Saldur was working as a canteen manager in a post office in 1999 and went on medical leave from January 4 to March 12. He was charged with forging and producing fitness and unfit certificates upon his resumption on duty. A complaint was registered against him and charges were framed. He was convicted under section 471 (forged document or use as electronic record) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court of Session, where he filed the appeal, was informed that the accused of forging documents were acquitted and that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Saldur himself had forged those documents. The counsel appearing for Mr. Saldur also argued that his client was not aware that the documents submitted at the post office were forged.
The prosecutor argued before the sessions court that the magistrate had rightly convicted Mr. Saldur as he was the one who submitted the documents.
However, the court was not convinced. “The prosecution has failed to prove that one of the acquitted accused had produced forged certificates and given it to Mr. Saldur,” it observed.
Judge Daga remarked, “Merely because Mr. Saldur has produced documents along with his application does not mean that he has committed an offense under section 471 of the IPC. The prosecution has committed an offense punishable under section 471 of the IPC. Failed to satisfy material to make.
The Sessions order read, “The Magistrate did not refer to the true facts and law and” [the conviction] This is contrary to the provision of section 471 of the IPC. Accordingly it is not just and proper and the conviction needs to be quashed.”