Criminal Revision No.648 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.648 of 1992 Date of decision: February 06, 2008 Prem Kumar Gagat … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mr.Aggarwal appearing for Prem Kumar Gagat has very fairly stated that petitioner, who was then Municipal Councilor, on the basis of yellow card issued by the Government, identified one Gollu Ram as Kura Ram, due to which he succeeded in getting loan of Rs.2000/- for purchase of a rickshaw. Mr.Aggarwal has been candid enough to state that two courts below have evaluated the evidence and returned finding of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner. In view of the documentary evidence taken into consideration by the courts below and the fact that there is no denial that the petitioner was Municipal Councilor of Nabha and he had attested form Ex.P-9 and verified that the information contained in column 1 to 12 as per his knowledge is correct and the loanee belong to Scheduled Caste, there is Criminal Revision No.648 of 1992 2 no escape but to conclude that petitioner has been rightly convicted by the two courts below. Mr.Aggarwal has very fairly stated that faced with these circumstances, he will not be able to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. Mr.Aggarwal has further stated that in the present case, form was attested on 8th August, 1985. He has further stated that though, nowhere stated or pleaded, but this Court can take notice of the fact that the petitioner had identified wrong man on the basis of the yellow card issued by the Government to the poorest of the poor. Mr.Aggarwal further stated that the complainant has admitted that there was a yellow card in favour of the beneficiary. He has further stated that Municipal Councilor, being a public man, in a routine use to attest the forms. He has further stated that this Court can take notice of the fact that an elected representative, out of popularism in order to please his constituents, in a routine has attested the form. There can be no denial of the fact that the form has been attested by the petitioner. Loan amount was only Rs.2000/-. The petitioner may have acted irresponsibly but he is not beneficiary of the loan amount. Taking totality of circumstances and the mitigating circumstances stated above by the Counsel and that the occurrence pertains to the year 1985, 23 years have elapsed, the loan was only for Rs.2000/-, ends of justice will be met in case sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10000/-. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of the present revision petition. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 6, 2008. rps