Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Dated of Decision: 15.04.2009 Baljit Singh son of Charan Singh, resident of Bela Road, Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State (Union Territory, Chandigarh). ...Respondent Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 Dated of Decision: 15.04.2009 Gurcharan Singh son of Nasib Singh, resident of village Barhmpur, District Ropar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State (Union Territory, Chandigarh). ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner, in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002. Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner, in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent – U.T. Chandigarh. 1 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This judgement shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002, filed by Baljit Singh, and Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002, filed by Gurcharan Singh, revision-petitioners, against the judgement dated 16.01.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeals, with modification, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.03.1998, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioners), for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 52 of the Post Office Act, and sentenced them, to various terms of imprisonment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that M/s Paul Merchants Limited, at SCO No. 829-30, Sector 21-A, were authorized by the Reserve Bank of India, to deal in foreign currency. This concern was also an authorized dealer of the American Travellers Related Services. Satpal, Managing Director of the said concern, placed an indent with American Express, New Delhi, for sending travellers cheques and an amount of 15,600 US Dollars, on 15.04.1997. In pursuance of the said indent, American Express, Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, booked the consignment of 100 travellers cheques for the amount of 15,600 US Dollars, on 17.04.1997, through speed post, New Delhi. The said consignment was received by Sh. S.N. Bhagat, and the packet, 2 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 containing 20 speed post letters, including letter No. 10301-85, was sent to the Paul Merchants on 17.04.1997. Sh. Mahi Paul of Post Office, Chandigarh, received the said packet, containing 20 letters, on 18.04.1997, and duly entered the same in the register. Gurcharan Singh, was posted as Postman, in the speed post and was allotted beat No. 5, for delivery of speed post, in which, the establishment of M/s Paul Merchants fell. The above referred to consignment, never reached M/s Paul Merchants. It was stolen by Gurcharan Singh, revision-petitioner. The matter was taken up with the postal authorities, when the consignment did not reach the destination. The consignment reached Chandigarh, wherefrom, it was lost. The travellers cheques worth US Dollars 14,100 were presented by one Barhma Nand, holder of passport No. 276373 dt. 19.01.1998, issued at Chandigarh, and the same were credited in his account. Barhma Nand, got issued a bankers cheque, from State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, in the name of Yash Pal Garg for a sum of Rs. 5,01,010/-, which was encashed on 29.04.1997. It was further stated that the State Bank authorities, forwarded encashment, to the main headquarters, in Salt Lake City, U.S.A, alongwith original encashed travellers cheques. A written complaint was filed by Sh. R.P. Kochhar, on the disclosure of these facts, whereupon, the case was registered and investigation was started. 3. Ved Pal, Sub Inspector, conducted the investigation, in the case. He recovered travellers cheque of U.S. Dollars alongwith cash amount of Rs. 5 lac, from the possession of Barhma Nand, on 27.05.1997. He also arrested Baljeet Singh, and two travellers cheques 3 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 one of U.S. Dollars 500 and another of U.S. Dollars 100 were also recovered from him. Similarly, he arrested Gurcharan Singh, revision- petitioner, on 02.06.1996. Three travellers cheques, one amounting to 500 U.S. Dollars, the second amounting to 100 U.S. Dollars and the third amounting 100 U.S. Dollars, were recovered from him. Ved Pal, Sub Inspector, took into Police possession the aforesaid U.S. Dollars, recovered from Baljeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh. He also took into possession other records, including the record of the Bank, where the stolen travellers cheques were presented for encashment, receipt of the travellers cheques, in the speed post, and the record of the State Bank of India, vide separate recovery memo. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 4. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 52 of the Post Office Act, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Rakesh Biana (PW1), Gian Singh (PW2), Harjit Singh (PW3), Rakesh Vats (PW4), Hans Raj Garg (PW5), Mahipal (PW6), S.C. Sharma (PW7), J.L. Bagri (PW8), Sub Inspector Ved Pal (PW9), Mohinder Pal, Constable (PW10), Darshan Singh (PW11), Satpal, Managing Director (PW12), Lala Ram (PW13), Sat Narain Bhagat (PW14), R.P. Kochhar, complainant (PW15), Ashok Joshi (PW16), Ramesh Babu (PW17), and 4 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 Om Parkash (PW18). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Gurcharan Singh, revision- petitioner, stated that on 31.05.1998, after finishing his duty, he was running fever and contacted his village doctor Mr. Daulat Ram. It was further stated by him, that he did not recover from his illness, and on Sunday morning i.e. on 01.06.1997, his brother brought him to Chandigarh and showed him to Dr. Abhi of Chandigarh. He gave him some medicine and also he got issued Medical Certificate for 6 days till 07.06.1997. At about 2.00 PM, one of his relatives Sardar Kashmira Singh, a U.T. Police driver, and, at that time, posted in Sector 17 Police Station, came to him, in the village, and asked him that there was some postal enquiry, in the Police Station, and his Officer wanted to ask certain things from him. He alongwith Kashmira Singh, came to Sector 17 Police Station, where he was made to sit by Sub Inspector Ved Pal Malik and this false case was registered against him. 7. Baljeet Singh, revision-petitioner, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he was brought from his residence, at Chamkaur Sahib, and falsely involved, in this case. 8. The revision-petitioners examined Gian Singh Rangi (DW1), Baljit Singh (DW2), Dharam Singh (DW3), and Karam Chand 5 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 (DW4), in their defence. Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence. 9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused (now revision-petitioners), as stated above. 10. Feeling aggrieved, appeals were filed by the accused (appellants), which were dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, with modification, vide judgement dated 16.01.2002. 11. Still feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid, revision-petitions were filed. 12. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 13. The Counsel for Baljeet Singh, revision-petitioner, submitted that Rakesh Biana, PW1, Harjit Singh, PW3, and Hans Raj Garg, PW5, could not identify Baljeet Singh, in the Court. He further submitted that they were declared hostile and their evidence was of no help to the prosecution. He further submitted that no evidence was produced, on the record, to prove that Baljeet Singh, was a part and parcel of the conspiracy. He further submitted that even there were many discrepancies, in the statements of the witnesses, relating to the alleged recovery of U.S. Dollars from Baljeet Singh. He further submitted that the Courts below were wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence to Baljeet Singh, for various offences. He further submitted that, in the alternative, if the Court, comes to the conclusion that the Courts below, were right, in recording conviction, 6 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 the sentence be reduced, to the period, already undergone, as the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last more than 11 years. 14. The Counsel for Gurcharan Singh, revision-petitioner, submitted that he was falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that he was never handed over the parcel, containing U.S. Dollars, which was to be delivered to M/s Paul Mechants of Sector 21- A. He further submitted that, in case, ultimately, the Court comes to the conclusion that the revision-petitioner, was rightly convicted by the Courts below, the sentence awarded to him, be reduced to the period already undergone. 15. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not to appraise and reappreciate the evidence, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings of guilt, recorded by the Courts below, are perverse, illegal, or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. No doubt, Rakesh Biana, PW1, Harjit Singh, PW3, and Hans Raj Garg, PW5, could not identify Baljeet Singh, revision-petitioner, in the Court, it may be stated here, that there can hardly be any direct evidence, with regard to conspiracy. The Courts below, relying upon the evidence of Rakesh Biana, PW1, and Harjit Singh, PW3, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that it was proved that Baljeet Singh, was frequent visitor to the bank, as he was bringing business of foreign exchange, for the bank. The Courts below were also right, in placing reliance, on the statement of Rakesh Vats, PW4, who deposed that, on 26.04.1997, he received a call from Harjit Singh, 7 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 PW3, that one NRI account holder came to their bank, and if he wanted to get the amount of the NRI, then he should tell him. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion, that it was Baljeet Singh, who brought the NRI namely Barhma Nand and he (Baljeet Singh), handed over a cheque of Rs. 5 lac, which was handed over to Hans Raj Garg and the latter, handed over the amount of Rs. 5 lac. Even when Baljeet Singh, revision-petitioner, was arrested on 01.06.1997, in the District Courts Complex, two traveller cheques exhibit P96 and P97, of U.S. Dollars, referred to above, were recovered from his possession. Those cheques were out of the cheques, which were despatched by the American Express Bank to M/s Paul Merchants, on 17.04.1997, pursuant to an indent placed by this concern on 15.04.1997. The Courts below, were, thus, right in placing reliance on the evidence of Ved Pal, Sub Inspector, PW9, Mohinder Pal, PW10, and Rakesh Vats, PW4, on the point of recovery of traveller cheques of U.S. Dollars, referred to above, from Baljeet Singh. The Courts below, were also right in taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, for coming to the conclusion, that Baljeet Singh, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The findings of guilt, recorded by the Courts below, in relation to Baljeet Singh, are neither perverse, nor illegal, nor erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. 16. Similarly, the Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that Gurcharan Singh, was posted as Postman. In his beat, the establishment of M/s Paul Merchants fell. From the evidence of 8 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 Mahi Pal, PW6, it was proved that after receipt of speed post letters numbering 20 from Delhi, on 18.04.1997, the same were handed over to Gurcharan Singh, revision-petitioner, for further sorting out and keeping the list with him. It was further stated by him, that the post of M/s Paul Merchants, was entrusted to Gurcharan Singh, for its delivery, as the said establishment fell in his beat. It was further stated by him that Gurcharan Singh, prepared the list of letters of his beat, and delivered the same, and, in the evening, he handed over the list alongwith signatures of the addressees and one letter was returned undelivered. He proved list PL, prepared by Gurcharan Singh. The list PL of the letters, prepared by Gurcharan Singh, did not find mention of the letter of M/s Paul Merchants, which was handed over to him. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that since the letter containing travellers cheques meant for M/s Paul Merchants, was not delivered by Gurcharan Singh, to whom, the same was entrusted, he mis-appropriated the same. Even, at the time of arrest of Gurcharan Singh, travellers cheques, referred to above of the denomination of 500 U.S. Dollars and 100 U.S. Dollars were recovered, which were taken into possession. The Courts below, by placing reliance, on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that Gurcharan Singh, revision- petitioner, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 52 of the Post Office Act. The findings of the Courts below, that Gurcharan Singh, was guilty of the offences, aforesaid, are 9 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 neither illegal, nor perverse, nor erroneous, on account of the mis- reading of evidence. The findings of the Courts below, in that regard, do not warrant any interference. 17. Now coming to the submission, made by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, that the sentence awarded to them, be reduced to the already undergone, it may be stated here, that the same carries weight. The revision-petitioners have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 11 years. It was Barhma Nand, who got encashed sizeable number of the aforesaid traveller cheques. The revision-petitioners must have suffered a lot of mental agony, and physical pain, during all these years. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which, the sentence of the revision-petitioners should be suitably reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, to the extent, aforesaid, is accepted. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petitions are partly accepted. The judgements of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, with modification, are maintained. The orders of substantive sentence are modified, in the manner, that Baljit Singh, revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 10 months, on each count, instead of the sentence, awarded by the trial Court, and modified by the Appellate Court. The sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine, shall remain intact. 19. The substantive sentence of Gurcharan Singh, revision- 10 Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2002 Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2002 petitioner, is reduced to 06 months, on each count, instead of the sentence, awarded by the trial Court, and modified by the Appellate Court. The sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine, shall remain intact. 20. The substantive sentences of both the revision-petitioners, as reduced, shall run concurrently. 21. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgement, promptly, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15.04.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE 11