6 Regarding point (a), the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant/accused was responsible for making the false document. With regard to point (b), the learned trial Court, while observing that the school leaving certificate, on the basis of which, date of birth of the appellant/accused was recorded as 25.07.1955 in his service record, is a forged document, held that on the basis of this forged document, the appellant/accused was regularized as a permanent employee and, as such, the use of the said forged document stands proved. The learned trial Court further observed that there is no direct evidence on record to suggest that it is the appellant/accused, who produced the said forged document before the concerned Authority, but went on to hold that the circumstances on record do establish that it is the appellant/accused, who produced the forged document i.e. school leaving certificate before his employer dishonestly. On the basis of findings on point (b), the learned trial Court, while returning findings on point (c), concluded that the appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted of the commission of
