1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.847/2021 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.937/2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.848/2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.847/2021: BETWEEN: 1 . G. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE K. GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.1701, 7TH MAIN, II STAGE, I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. PRESENTLY AT 24/5, HURALICHIKKANAHALLI ROAD, NEAR MASJID, KODAGI THIRUMALAPURA, HESSARGHATTA MAIN ROAD, HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 089. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 009. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) R 2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.07.2021 PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64) IN CRL.A.NO.1401/2015 DISMISSING THE SAME AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.15101/1998 CONVICTING HIM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 109, 465, 419, 468, 474, 477(A), 471, 420, 201 OF IPC AND THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2015, SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR EACH OFFENCE CONVICTED AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- FOR EACH OFFENCE CONVICTED AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO FURTHER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH FOR EACH OFFENCE AND TO ACQUIT HIM. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.937/2021: BETWEEN: 1 . NANDAKUMAR S/O NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ANANDANIKETHANA AECS LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE GEDALAHALLI BANGALORE – 560094 2 . A V R SHRAMA @ AKELA VENKATARAMA SHARMA S/O A R K MURTHYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.290/6, 3RD ‘A’ CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560009. 3 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1238, 6TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE BANGALORE – 560 078. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALSURGATE POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY SPP DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH Court OF KARANTAKA BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE TRIAL COURT, DATED 16.11.2015 IN C.C.NO.15101/1998 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CONVICTING THE PETITIONER AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465 OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419 OF IPC SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 468 OF IPC SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT, OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 474 OF IPC , SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 4 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 477A OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 471 OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC, S.I OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- SENTENCED TO UNDERGO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 201 OF IPC, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO FURTHER I MONTH OF SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR EACH OFFENCE AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED ON 09.07.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.1503/2015 BY THE HONBLE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU CONFIRMING CONVICTION ORDER OF TRIAL COURT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.848/2021: BETWEEN: 1 . A. RAMACHANDRAN S/O APPAVUNAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: RETD. PROFESSOR R/AT 690, 2ND CROSS ASHOKA NAGAR, BSK-I STAGE BENGALURU CITY-560001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAMOULI H.S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF HALASURUGATE P.S., 5 BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLI PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-64) IN CRL.A.NO.1515/2015, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2 (THE PETITIONER HEREIN) IN C.C.NO.15101/1998 DATED 16.11.2015 BY THE VI ACMM, BANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER Heard learned counsels for petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. These criminal revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.15101/1998 and confirmation of the judgment of Trial Court by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.Nos.1401/2015, 1503/2015 and 1515/2015. 6 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, at the time of B.E. Computer Science valuation during February-March 1996, in order to get benefit in the valuation, accused persons formed criminal conspiracy to commit other offence and accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 abetted to other accused to commit the offence and created documents, with a common intention, accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 destroyed original marks list and prepared duplicate marks list and cheated to the Bangalore University and forged record of University i.e., possessed duplicate marks lists knowing it forged document with an intention to use the same as genuine and thereby, defrauded the University and also forged marks list by destroying answer papers, original marks list and also destroyed original answers paper and marks list and thereby committed the offences. 4. When the case was taken up for trial, accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 to 11 did not appear and split up case has been registered. Hence, accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 have faced the trial. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 8 worked as valuators in Computer Science Engineering 7 examination held during February-March 1996. The accused No.2 worked as custodian and accused No.5 being failed student colluded with accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 and managed to get passing marks in Computer Science exam. The police registered the case based on the complaint, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons and these accused persons did not plead guilty and hence, trial was conducted. 5. The prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P390. The accused persons were subjected to 313 statement and they have not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 465, 419, 468, 474, 477(A), 471, 420 and 201 IPC and for all the offences, the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- each to all the offences. 8 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused persons preferred appeals before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.Nos.1401/2015, 1503/2015 and 1515/2015 and common judgment was pronounced having reassessed the material on record. The First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and impugned judgment does not require any interference and answered the points for consideration as ‘negative’. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence and confirmation made by the First Appellate Court, present criminal revision petitions are filed before this Court. 7. In Criminal Revision Petition No.847/2021, petitioner/accused No.8, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that case was registered in the year 1998 in Crime No.193/1997 and charges are also framed against accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8. The Trial Court committed an error in considering the material available on record. The main ground urged in the revision petition is that both the Courts failed to 9 consider the material on record and particularly, in the statement under Section 313, not put incriminating materials i.e., both oral and documentary evidence to the accused. In order to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was an agreement by the accused to commit an offence and there must be meeting of minds of the accused persons. In the case on hand, no witness is examined on behalf of the prosecution, in order to prove the chain of circumstance to invoke Section 120B IPC. It is also contended that there is no oral or documentary evidence to satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 109 IPC. It is further contended that the charge for the offence under Section 468 IPC framed for the offence of forgery is independent offence, wherein an allegation is made that accused No.1 with a common intention to cheat the University, destroyed original marks list and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. It is also contended that narration of the facts of that charge does not come within the purview of the definition of forgery defined in Section 463 IPC. The offence under Section 463 IPC 10 contemplates creation of a false document, not destruction and both the Courts failed to take note of said fact into consideration. 8. It is also contended that Section 149 IPC was invoked and the same is with regard to common object is concerned and while invoking Section 419 IPC, it is alleged that petitioner and accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 impersonated other persons with an intention to cheat and prepared duplicate marks sheets and there is no evidence in the prosecution material that the petitioner personated any person with an intention to cheat and thereby prepared duplicate marks lists. There is no evidence in the prosecution material that petitioner impersonated any person with an intention to cheat. The other offence under Section 474 IPC is that the petitioner possessed forged document i.e., duplicate marks list knowing it to be forged document and intending to use it as genuine and nothing is placed on record by the prosecution that the petitioner had possessed any forged document. The offence invoked under Section 477(A) IPC is also that he created false marks lists with an intention to defraud the University and there is no evidence 11 to that effect. Even for invoking the offence under Sections 471 and 420 IPC that the petitioner destroyed original marks list and prepared forged marks list and destroyed the answer scripts also, no material is placed on record. But, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in not considering the material on record in a proper perspective. 9. It is further contended that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and FIR was registered only on 20.02.1997. There is a delay over one year in lodging the information which is unexplained. Learned counsel would contend that regarding the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 14 is concerned, after chief examination, they were not subjected to cross-examination. Hence, the prosecution ought not to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 14 and order suffers from its legality and correctness. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that this judgment is not at all a judgment and the name of this petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and not proved the offence alleged against this petitioner and 12 this petitioner is only a valuator and P.W.10 has not stated anything about the role of this petitioner. 10. In Criminal Revision Petition No.848/2021, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 would contend that there were 11 persons, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 11 and this petitioner is accused No.2. It is contended that 11 students have been implicated and no Departmental Enquiry is initiated against this petitioner, who is accused No.2 and his role is only to handover the papers for valuation. The judgment of the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 is contrary to each other. It is contended that the First Appellate Court also, not appreciated the same in a proper perspective and there was a delay in lodging the complaint and complaint is also not a legal complaint and this incident has taken place long back i.e., 27 years ago and judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable. He would further contend that the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.14 has not been subjected to cross-examination and his evidence ought not to have been relied upon by the prosecution. 13 The allegation against this petitioner is that he committed the offence of abetment and except the said offence, no other offence is alleged against this petitioner. 11. In Criminal Revision Petition No.937/2021, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 5 adopts the arguments canvassed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner/accused Nos.2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.848/2021 and learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.8 in Criminal Revision Petition No.847/2021. 12. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that there was conspiracy and the same is spoken to by P.W.10. With regard to manipulation of document and creation of forgery is concerned, Exs.P4 to P23- duplicate marks lists are produced before the Court and Exs.P24 to P27 and Exs.P35 and P36 are marks lists which have been tampered and altered the marks which have been given by the valuators, who have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 9. He would contend that P.W.1 is the complainant, who gave the complaint 14 and based on the complaint, case was registered and Ex.P1 is the complaint. He would vehemently contend that P.Ws.2 to 9 are the valuators, who categorically deposed that the signature found therein not belongs to them and created the marks list. P.W.10 is the Doctor, who categorically deposed with regard to the manipulation and forgery. He also would contend that both the Courts in detail discussed act of these petitioners and found the material and even the First Appellate Court also in detail discussed in the judgment, particularly in paragraph No.26 of the judgment. He would vehemently contend that P.W.11, who is the Professor also deposed before the Court with regard to the manipulation and forgery and creation of document and P.W.12 is the Scientific Officer, who conducted scientific examination of the papers, which have been sent to him. It is contended that though P.W.14 has not been cross-examined and his evidence is not reliable, the evidence of other witnesses is available before the Court. He would further contend that both the Courts in detail discussed the material on record and given definite finding that these accused persons, who happen to be the valuators, custodian and student have indulged in creation of documents 15 and involved in the act of forgery and active role was played in preparing duplicate marks card. 13. In reply to this argument of learned HCGP for the respondent-State, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.848/2021 would contend that the First Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter, since there is no material against the petitioner to prove the alleged act and no proper discussion with regard to the material on record and once the Investigating Officer was not cross- examined, the First Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court. 14. Having heard learned counsels for the petitioners, learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also having perused the material on record and also the grounds urged in each of these criminal revision petitions, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioners and confirmation of the same by the First Appellate 16 Court was an error and whether the order impugned suffers from its legality and correctness to invoke revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? 15. Having considered the grounds urged in all the revision petitions and also oral submissions of respective counsels for the petitioners and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State, this Court has to analyze the material on record. Though the scope of the revision is very limited, since there is a concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in arriving at such a conclusion, this Court while exercising the revisional powers, considering the scope and ambit of the revision, see whether the judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from its legality and correctness and reanalyze the same. 16. Having considered the material on record and factual aspects of the case, this Court would like to sum up nutshell of the case of the prosecution that at the time of B.E. Computer Science valuation held during February-March 1996, in order to 17 get benefit in the valuation, accused persons formed criminal conspiracy and accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 abetted other accused to commit the offence and created documents and with a common intention, accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 destroyed original marks list and prepared duplicate marks list i.e., Exs.P4 to P23 and original marks list are forged i.e.., Exs.P24 to P27, P35 and P36 and replaced the same and cheated Bangalore University and forged the records and possessed duplicate marks lists knowing fully well that the same are forged documents with an intention to use the same as genuine documents. In order to prove the charges leveled against them, though cases are registered against several persons, case was split up, in view of the fact that other accused persons were not secured and only these petitioners have faced trial. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 8 worked as valuators in B.E. Computer Science Engineering Examination held during February-March 1996. It is also not in dispute that accused No.2 is a custodian and accused No.3 being a student colluded with other accused persons and managed to get passing marks. 18 17. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and relied upon the documents of Exs.P1 to P390. The charges leveled against the petitioners are abetment, conspiracy, forgery, cheating and making use of the forged documents as genuine documents. Keeping in view the contentions alleged in the revision petitions, this Court has to analyze the material on record. It has to be noted that prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the complainant, who gave complaint and based on the complaint, case has been registered. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.3 to 7 and 9 to 11 are the students, who failed in the examination. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that, Investigating Officer is not examined and the evidence placed before the Court is not sufficient to convict the accused and in the absence of evidence of Investigating Officer, the judgment passed by the Trial Court is not a judgment at all. It is also contended that name of accused No.8 is not mentioned in the FIR. It is also the contention of learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 that no DE is initiated against him, who worked as custodian of the papers and his job is only to handover the 19 papers for valuation and there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the offences alleged against them is not sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 8 in Crl.R.P.No.937/2021 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for accused No.5 and learned counsel for accused No.2. The Court has to take note of the material available on record with regard to exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 18. It is important to note that P.W.1, who is the Registrar (Evaluation) of Bangalore University has lodged the complaint and case has been registered at the first instance for the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 468 IPC, wherein it is mentioned that some of the members of the academic council/syndicate and senate have urged Vice-Chancellor to look into the alleged malpractices in the valuation of B.E. Degree course that was held in the month of February 1996. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor was pleased to appoint a Special Co-ordinator to conduct thorough verification relating to the Computer Science branch and submit a report in detail. The Special Co-ordinator has submitted a detailed report to this 20 effect on 18.02.1997 along with enclosures with a request to take up this case and investigate the matter and particularly, the report indicates register numbers, answer book number including additional answer books, year of exam, name of the subject, nature of malpractice, script code, original answer books, including main answer books and additional answer books in respect of the register numbers mentioned in the report numbering 31. Taking note of the contents of Ex.P1, no doubt, particularly not made any specific allegation against the accused persons, but relied upon Ex.P2-letter dated 11.03.1997 of P.W.1 forwarding answer books and also Ex.P3-original marks list of B.E. examination held during February 1996 and Programming. Exs.P4 to P23 are mark sheets with main and additional answer sheets, which are all disclose that the candidates have secured more than 35 marks and that marks have been added to it by way of rectifying the initial marks. Exs.P24 to P27 are all marks list of 4th year B.E. and Exs.P28 to P30 are specimen signatures of Sri R. John Stephen. Exs.P31 to P34 are model handwritings of Sri R. John Stephen. Exs.P35 and P36 are mark lists that contain seals and signatures of accused No.2, who is one of the 21 petitioner herein and worked as custodian. Exs.P37 to P39 are sample signatures of valuators and Exs.P40 to P43 are model handwritings of witnesses. Exs.P45, P46, P47 to P58 and P59 to P155 are specimen signatures of model handwritings of accused No.1. Ex.P156 is the letter of accused No.1 dated 02.09.1992 addressed to Principal. The other documents are also relied upon with regard to the specimen signatures. 19. It is also important to note that the documents which have been forged were also subject to Scientific Officer’s examination and Ex.P389 is the FSL report dated 28.05.1998. The report discloses that all the aforesaid documents have been scientifically examined and handwritings not tallies with the disputed handwriting in the marks lists. Ex.P390 is the detailed reasons for opinion submitted as per Ex.P389. In terms of the contents of the report at Ex.P390, it is clear that the writings in the disputed marks list and the writings on the original marks list and answer book are not resembled to one and the same persons. The said report discloses that the disputed writings and admitted writings are tallied with each other. In Ex.P24 to P27- 22 marks lists, the signatures of accused No.2 are identified as Q- 35, Q-38, Q-37 and Q-39 respectively. The documents marked as Exs.P24 to P27 are identified by the Expert as Q-15, Q-18, Q- 17 and Q-19 respectively. The signature of Srinath on Ex.P24 is identified as Q-112, signature of Y.C. Reddy is identified as Q- 48. In Ex.P25, signature of K.A.R. Shetty is identified as Q-116. Signature of A. Ramachandran is identified as Q-62. Signature of R. John Stephen in Exs.P26 and P27 are all identified as Q-114. Q-115, Q117 and Q-118 respectively. The reports are also given identifying the signatures. 20. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taking note of the evidence of P.W.2, he categorically says that while handing over answer papers, the same are decoded and P.W.3 speaks that he has valued the answer sheet-Ex.P8 and that he has written marks 49 in the face sheet of Ex.P8. But the marks list shown to him is not written by him and taken note of the document of Ex.P8 is forged document. So also in respect of evidence of P.W.4-valuator, the same discloses that he valued Ex.P25- 23 answer sheet and that his signature is not there. But, signature marked as Q-116 is not signed by him. Marks entered in Ex.P25 also are not in his handwriting and the same has been forged and fabricated, so also the evidence of P.W.5 is similar, who had valuated Ex.P26. In his evidence, he says that P.Ws.3 to 5 have not been cross-examined by any of the accused persons and the same is accepted. 21. It is also important to note that P.W.6 has valued the marks sheet-Ex.P27, wherein also his signature was not found and signature made in Exs.P28 to P30 are his sample signatures. P.W.7 is also a valuator and he has valuated Ex.P10-answer script. He has deposed that the handwritings on Exs.P8 to P12 differ from each other and in Ex.P35, his signature is there. So also, P.W.8, categorically deposes that accused No.2 is the custodian of valuation centre and handwritings in Ex.P36 is not his handwriting. But, he identifies his signature in the handwriting Exs.P37 to P43. The other witness is P.W.9, who speaks that accused No.2 was custodian and Ex.P16-answer sheet is valued by him. He categorically says that in Ex.P16, he 24 has given only 3 marks. But, somebody has mentioned it as 3 + 3. Similarly, in page Nos.6 to 8 of Ex.P16, he has given only 10 marks. But, somebody has mentioned it as 4 marks each. So also in page No.9 of Ex.P16, he has given only ‘0’ marks and the same is changed as 8 marks, instead of ‘0’ marks and the same is a manipulation. Having considered the evidence of these witnesses, it is very clear with regard to forgery, manipulation and creation of duplicate marks list and documentary evidence discloses forgery and manipulation is concerned. 22. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.10, he was called to the University and requested him to verify and say whether some answer booklets were properly evaluated or not. Whether the total marks tallies with total marks mentioned on the front sheet of answer booklets and the same has been marked as Ex.P13, Exs.P14 to P23 and Ex.P45. He also says that there were alterations in the marks given to each candidate. But, his evidence does not disclose that, who has actually valuated the said answer booklets among accused Nos.1, accused No.8 and other valuators. The other witness is P.W.11, who was deputed 25 to value B.E. Computer Science answer sheet and he deposes that accused No.2 was custodian and police have obtained his model handwritings. 23. The main evidence of prosecution is P.W.12, who is the Scientific Officer, who conducted scientific examination of document. He categorically deposes that he has received 20 marks list marked as Exs.P24, P25, P26, P27, P35, P36, P44, P47 to P58 and Ex.D1. He also categorically deposes that sample signatures and handwritings of accused No.1 in 100 sheets are marked as Exs.P59 to P158 and he also identified the said model handwritings and sample signatures as E-1 to E-97 and S-1 to S- 7 and model handwriting and sample signatures of A. Prabhakar in 18 sheets which is marked as Exs.P159 to P176. He also identified the said handwriting and sample seals as E-98 to E- 114 and S-31 and S-32. He also received the model handwritings and sample signatures of R. Nagaraj in 17 sheets which are marked as Exs.P177 to P193 and also identified the said documents. So also handwriting and sample signature of Smt. Sumitra in 22 sheets are marked as Exs.P199 to P125 and identified the documents and so also signature of accused No.2- 26 A. Ramachandra in 50 sheets is identified by him as Exs.P216 to P264 and specimen signature of accused No.2 as S-8 and S-13. The model handwritings of accused No.2 as E-158 to E-201 and E-165(1) and E-166(1) respectively. He also received the sample signature of Y. Chandrashekar Reddy in 60 sheets which are marked as Exs.P265 to P269 and P324 respectively. Similarly, he has received model handwritings and sample signatures of witness V. Ramanathan in 10 sheets which are marked as Exs.P257 to Exs.P266 and also received the sample signatures and model handwritings of K.A.R. Shetty in 5 sheets which is marked as Exs.P335 to P339 and also received the model handwriting and signature of K.S. Suresh in 7 sheets which are marked as Exs.P342 to P348 and also model handwritings and sample signature of N.K. Srinath in 6 sheets which are marked as Exs.P349 to P354 and sample signature of R. John Stephen in 7 sheets which are identified by him as Exs.P294 to P300. 24. In respect of these witnesses as well as accused No.8-G. Narendra Kumar, who valued the papers in 21 sheets, 27 the same are marked as Exs.P335 to P375. P.W.12 has further deposed that after verification of sample signatures and model handwritings of the aforesaid persons, he has submitted a report as per Exs.P389 and P390 respectively. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing is elicited in support of the case of the accused persons that he has not conducted scientific examination of the said documents and that he has submitted false report. 25. The other witness is P.W.13 and he has deposed that he has taken case diary for further investigation from C.W.17. He has sent a letter to Bangalore University with a request to verify Xerox documents and to send a report and he has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 26. The other witness is P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, who came and gave the evidence before the Court and the Investigating Officer was not subjected to cross-examination. The cross-examination was deferred at the request of accused persons. But, later on he did not appear before the Court and no coercive steps were taken. Hence, the evidence of P.W.14 28 cannot be considered, since he did not subject himself for cross- examination and his evidence also cannot be considered and based on his evidence, the Court also cannot convict a person, since he was not subjected to cross-examination. His evidence has to be discarded, even inspite of he has been examined as witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon. 27. Having reassessed the material on record, the Court has to take note of evidence of P.Ws.2 to 9, who have conducted the valuation, wherein it is observed that mark sheets are tampered. The evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that documents are tampered and replaced the marks list and report is also given in terms of Ex.P389. It is also important to note that specimen signatures Exs.P59 to 157 are also marked and the same were sent for scientific examination. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court also taken note of these documents and though the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not discussed each and every document, but the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.28, while considering the evidence of P.W.12-Scientific Officer, each and every document of 29 handwritings and sample signatures have been taken note of and particularly, analyzed the evidence in paragraph No.31 and nothing is elicited in cross-examination of P.W.12. 28. I have already pointed out that sample signatures of accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 and disputed signatures of accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 were taken note of. The accused persons are valuators and custodian, who have played major role in manipulating the marks list in collusion with other accused persons. But, nothing is elicited with regard to discrediting the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.12 categorically denied the suggestions. The fact that accused Nos.3 to 7 and 9 to 11 are students, who failed in the examination and they were successful in the subsequent manipulation of documents is not in dispute. Hence, the Court has to take note of the circumstantial evidence with regard to criminal conspiracy to tamper the marks given to them in the said examination and with an intention to obtain passing marks, these petitioners, particularly accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 have destroyed the original marks list and prepared duplicate marks list. It is not in dispute that accused No.2 is custodian and learned counsel for accused No.2 would contend 30 that his job is only to handover papers for valuation and not only handing over papers, but after valuation, he has to collect the same and keep the same in his custody and the fact that he is the custodian of answer script is not in dispute. It is also important to note that the evidence of valuators is very clear that whatever marks they have given are altered, tampered and they were handed over to accused after evaluating the same. It is also important to note that accused Nos.1 and 8 were hand-in- glove with accused Nos.3 to 7 and 9 to 11, who are the students and their sample handwritings have been obtained and these petitioners, helped the students, who got less marks in the valuation and their answer scripts disclose that they got through in the examination. 29. Having taken note of these material on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the material on record and I do not find any perversity in the finding of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 to 9, who are the valuators. P.Ws.10 and 11, who have been 31 deputed examined the papers and given the report. The material witness is P.W.12, who speaks about the manipulation and submitted a report. 30. The contention of learned counsels for the respective petitioners is that the Investigating Officer has not been subjected to cross-examination and his evidence is not credible, since he was not subjected to cross-examination. Whether non- examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the same has to be analyzed by this Court. 31. In this regard, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519. In this judgment, the Apex Court in paragraph No.11 held that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects the creditability of the prosecution version and after the examination-in-chief and partial cross-examination, the Investigating Officer died. Therefore, this cannot be a case which can be stated to have caused any prejudice to the accused 32 on account of the Investigating Officer’s non-examination and held that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects the creditability of the prosecution version and also observed that non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in anyway create any dent in the prosecution case, much less affect the credibility of otherwise trustworthy testimony of the eye witnesses as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in RAM DEV VS. STATE OF U.P. reported in 1995 SUPP (1) SCC 547. 32. The Apex Court also in the judgment in BEHARI PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317, held that non-examination of Investigating Officer does not per se vitiate the trial. The Apex Court also observed that entire case diary should not be allowed to be exhibited by the trial Judge and held that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in 33 their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal strait-jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. 33. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of whether the evidence is crucial, if prosecution presents strong evidence from the witnesses, who are examined. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that it is a case of forgery, manipulation and using forged documents as genuine document and with regard to the same, the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 9 speak about the manipulation and manipulation is proved by examining P.W.12-Scientific Officer, who conducted scientific examination of admitted signature and also specimen signature and tampering of the marks list and preparing duplicate marks list keeping the same in the records as genuine document. 34. It has to noted that non-examination of Investigating Officer does not automatically mean that the accused was prejudiced. It is also important to note that when the case 34 involves cheating and forgery, non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. That means, it does not automatically lead to an acquittal as long as no prejudice is caused to the accused and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses presented is substantive piece of evidence and essentially the Court can still analyze the specific circumstances of the case and determine lack of testimony of Investigating Officer impacts the case of the prosecution. But, in the case on hand, that does not goes to the very root of the prosecution case, since strong circumstantial evidence is available before the Court i.e., documentary evidence and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 9, who depose that they have valued the papers and manipulated document does not contain their signature and whatever marks they have given as ‘0’ has been converted as different marks. When independent evidence is available before the Court, it cannot be held that the same goes to the very root of the case, in view of non-examination of Investigating Officer. 35 35. In the case of BIRENDRA RAI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2005) 9 SCC 719, the Apex Court observed that the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case and that has resulted in prejudice to the accused. But, held that having gone through the evidence of witnesses and other material on record, we do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the defence by non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The mere fact that according to the seizure list, a stick with bloodstains and pellet marks was seized from the place of occurrence, would not advance this argument any further. 36. The Apex Court also in the judgment in BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2015) 17 SCC 554 held that mere non-examination of Investigating Officer does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects the credibility of the prosecution. It also added that whether or not any prejudice has been caused to the accused is a question of fact to be determined in each case. 36 37. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments, in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer has been examined, but he was not subjected to cross-examination. Hence, it cannot be held that his evidence cannot be considered as evidence for conviction and sentence and the Court has to take note of other material on record and substantive evidence is placed by the prosecution by examining the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 9, who have valued the papers and the signatures on the papers which are valued is not that of their signatures and the signatures of accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 were also taken and specimen signatures were also examined by the prosecution. Hence, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 being the valuators and custodian have involved in helping the failed students and they have conspired with each other, in order to help the students, who failed in the examination and made them to get through the examination. These are the material which clearly disclose that other independent evidence are crucial evidence and strong evidence available before the Court and particularly, case of the prosecution is forgery and material alterations and documentary 37 evidence is placed before the Court. Hence, non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel that the contention that same is not a judgment at all cannot be accepted and the contention that non-examination of Investigating Officer goes to the very root of the case and fatal to the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted and each and every case has to be looked into and analyzed by the Court. Here is a case that more than oral evidence is concerned, documentary evidence depicts involvement of the petitioners in committing forgery, manipulation and conspiracy clearly disclose that there was meeting of minds in tampering the papers and cheating the University, in order to help the other accused persons. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the same does not suffer from its legality and corrects. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii) 38. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: 38 ORDER The criminal revision petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE ST