JUDGMENT

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. C. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. F. H. Laskar, learned P P Assam.

2. This Criminal Revision has been carried from the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 37/96 dismissing the appeal so preferred by the petitioner and upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420/471, IPC read with Section 368 IPC and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup Guwahati vide judgment and order dated 6.8.1996 rendered in Case No. 1769/89 to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days for each section and also to pay fine of Rs. 500 for each section in default to suffer S.I. for another period of 1 (one) month for both the sections.

3. Impugning the conviction and sentence, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegation against the petitioner of forgery of ITI pass certificate on the basis of which he procured appointment as Khalasi in Diesal Shed, New Guwahati N. F. Railway in as much as the alleged forged certificate in original was not produced by the prosecution and as such the learned trial Court committed a grave error of law in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under the above mentioned sections only on the basis of photostat copy of the certificate alleged to have been forged by the petitioner when it is settled that a case of forgery cannot be built up on the basis of a Photostat copy alone.

4. I have carefully perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below as welt as the materials available on record and on meticulous scanning of the same, it appears that both the Courts below had extensively dealt with the prosecution witnesses and the documents so submitted before the Court. It was held by the Courts below that despite the ample opportunities given to the petitioner to establish that he was duly qualified and ITI pass candidate, he had chosen to remain silent. On the other hand, it was proved from the evidence on record that the petitioner had never passed ITI and he fraudulently procured forged certificate and thereby induced the competent authority to select and appoint him as Diesel Khalasi.

5. That being so, I do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the Courts below in awarding the impugned conviction and sentence. Accordingly, I am of the view that this revision is devoid of any merit and the impugned conviction and sentence are hereby upheld.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the occurrence took place 15 years ago, i.e., in the year 1989 and the matter has been pending for a long period, the petitioner has already suffered a lot both mentally and financially and as such taking this factual aspect into account petitioner's sentence may be commuted. Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that since this Court has no power to commute any such sentence which has been exclusively vested with the State of Assam under Section 433 Cr.PC, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in a case of State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Prem Raj reported in (2003) 7 SCC 121, the petitioner shall approach, the appropriate Govt. i.e. State of Assam for the relief as is available under the taw as envisaged under Section 433 Cr.PC, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may be pleased to fix a time frame for such purpose and till then, since the petitioner has all along been on bail, the execution of the impugned sentence may be suspended. Submission is accepted. In the interest of justice, three months' time from today is granted and during such period the impugned sentence shall not be executed.

8. With the above observations and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.