Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2061 of 2002 Date of Decision: 04 - 6 - 2010 Satbir ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Satbir son of Layak Ram. He was tried along with one Rajesh son of Jagdish. Both were named as accused in case FIR No.539 dated 1.9.2000 registered at Police Station City Palwal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal vide its judgment dated 15.6.2001 held both the accused Satbir and Rajesh guilty of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 , 471 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under:- “U/s. 420 IPC : One year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in case of Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [2] default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. U/s. 467 IPC : Three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. U/s. 468 IPC : Three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. U/s. 471 IPC : Three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month.” Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by both the accused. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide its judgment dated 1.10.2002 accepted the appeal qua Rajesh and recorded his acquittal. However, no merit was found in the appeal preferred by Satbir. His conviction was upheld on various grounds and sentence was maintained. Hence, the present revision petition. On 1.9.2000, HC Jagbir Singh PW2 sent a ruqa Ex.PW2/B to Police Station, City Palwal for registration of a case which stated that he was posted as Incharge, Police Post Palwal. On 30.8.2000 at Bus Stand Chowk, G.T. Road, ASI Bijender Singh had impounded a jeep bearing registration No.HR-30A-4317. A challan was issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal. Owner of the jeep Kishan Singh son Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [3] of Amin Chand, on 30.8.2000 presented orders passed by C.J.M., Faridabad for release of the jeep on supardari. The orders passed by the C.J.M., Faridabad alongwith supardarinama and surety bonds as well as registration cover book were taken into possession and the jeep was released. On 31.8.2000, a young person, who later disclosed his name as Satbir Sharma son of Layak Ram, resident of Village Bahadurpur, Police Station Chainsa, Faridabad presented himself at 11.30 A.M. and handed over one chit bearing No.791977 which showed that the amount of fine had been paid. In lieu of presentation of receipt of fine, R.C. of the jeep was released in favour of Satbir Sharma. However, HC Jagbir Singh became suspicious regarding authenticity of the receipt, upon which HC Jagbir Singh on 31.8.2000 and 1.9.2000 appeared in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and made enquiries regarding genuineness of the receipt. It was found that in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Receipt Book commencing from Serial No.108701 to 108800 was being used and on 31.8.2000, receipts bearing Serial Nos.108772 to 108778 were issued. Therefore, the receipt presented by the accused was forged. Hence, in the ruqa, it was stated that a case be registered under Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC. On the basis of ruqa, Ex.PW2/B, formal FIR Ex.PW8/B was registered. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. During the investigation, it came to light that not only the receipt produced by the accused was a forged one but after his arrest, ten more forged receipts were recovered from him along with a stamp of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. On 23.2.2001, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [4] charged the appellant for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Broadly speaking, allegation against the petitioner was that on 31.8.2000 in the area of Bus Stand of Police Station Palwal, he produced a forged receipt issued by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal which was of valuable security and HC Jagbir Singh delivered RC book of jeep bearing registration No.HR-30A-4317. Prosecution examined ASI Bijender Singh as PW1, PW2 HC Jagbir Singh, PW3 HC Om Parkash, PW4 Constable Surinder Kumar, PW5 Kishan Singh, PW6 Shri J.R.Chauhan, PW7 Shri Y.S.Rathor, PW8 ASI Zile Singh, PW9 SI Ravi Dutt and closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him, to which he denied and pleaded his false implication. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW2 HC Jagbir Singh in order to hold that petitioner had produced a forged receipt and had obtained registration cover of the jeep from him. The receipt was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. The Court also relied upon the testimony of PW3 HC Om Parkash in whose presence accused had suffered a disclosure statement wherein he stated that he had stolen fine receipts 10/12 days ago from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. He had utilized few bogus receipts of fine and got recovered one rubber stamp of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad along with one stamp of release order and 10 receipts. This disclosure statement was also witnessed by PW4 Constable Surinder Kumar. Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [5] PW5 Kishan Singh owner of the jeep stated that he had handed over Rs.2500/- to one Advocate for obtaining orders of supardari. This witness had shielded the accused by saying that four days thereafter Clerk of the Advocate and Satbir handed over to him the registration cover of the jeep. Shri J.R.Chauhan who was then posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad appeared as PW6. PW7 Shri Y.S.Rathor who was then posted as Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal deposed that police had presented an application Ex.PW7/A for taking specimen handwriting of the accused-petitioner but the accused refused to give his specimen handwriting. PW1 ASI Bijender Singh had stated that investigation of the case was handed over to him. ASI Zile Singh PW8 had registered the case. SI Ravi Dutt PW9 was lateron entrusted with the investigation and he concluded the same by presenting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused. From the findings recorded by both the Courts below, the following two findings remain un-assailed that the accused produced a forged receipt before PW2 HC Jagbir Singh. Furthermore, in pursuance to disclosure statement made by him, some forged receipts and rubber stamps were recovered. Secondly, the investigating agency had produced the accused before the Judicial Magistrate for taking his specimen signatures but he had refused to give his specimen handwriting. Thus, a presumption can be drawn against the present petitioner. I have heard Mr.J.S.Hooda, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State of Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [6] Haryana. Mr.Hooda has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgments of both the Courts below but he submitted that because of acquittal of Rajesh, the petitioner is also entitled to acquittal. The Appellate Court acquitted Rajesh on the ground that no incriminating evidence was discernible. In the present case, the police witnesses are not inimical towards the accused. From the testimony of PW5 Kishan Singh, it also emerges that the petitioner was present along with the Clerk of the Advocate and had handed over the receipt. Thus, the petitioner had not only appeared before HC Jagbir Singh and produced forged receipt but also handed over registration cover to owner of the jeep PW5 Kishan Singh. Thus, I find no reason to differ with well reasoned findings of both the Courts below. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner for various offences recorded by both the Courts below is upheld. In the present case, the FIR was registered in the year 2000. Petitioner had already suffered mental pain and agony of the protracted trial for a period of 10 years. Taking these facts into consideration, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC is reduced to 1½ years. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Since the fine has been paid, there is no need to pass separate orders for the sentence to be undergone in default of payment of fine. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) June 04, 2010 JUDGE RC Crl. Rev. No.2061 of 2002 [7]