-1- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 Date of Decision: March 29, 2010. Kishan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 Sohan Lal ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate and Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State-respondent -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 1840 -2- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 as they arise out of the same F.I.R. Petitioners Kishan Singh and Sohan Lal were convicted under Sections 474, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') by the trial Court and were sentenced as under:- “Accused Kishan Singh shall undergo R.I for one year under section 474 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month more. Accused Kishan Singh shall undergo R.I for six months under section 471 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month . Accused Kishan Singh shall undergo R.I for one year under section 420 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month more. Accused Sohan Lal shall undergo R.I for one year under section 474 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month more. Accused Sohan Lal shall undergo R.I for six months under section 471 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month. -3- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 Accused Sohan Lal shall undergo R.I for one year under section 420 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in payment of fine he will undergo R.I for one month more. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On separate appeals by Kishan Singh and Sohan Lal, the lower appellate Court, while partly accepting the appeals, acquitted them of the charges framed under sections 420 and 471 of the code. However, the judgment of conviction of petitioners Kishan Singh and Sohan Lal under Section 474 of the Code and the sentence awarded to them for this offence by the trial Court were maintained by the lower appellate Court. Hence these revision petitions by Kishan Singh and Sohan Lal. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, A.P.S Sarkaria, who was posted as District Transport Officer Balachaur, on 04.05.1993, put up a Naka in the area of Balachaur. He intercepted one Bodh Raj who was driving a truck. Bodh Raj produced his driving license purported to have been issued by A.P.S. Sarkaria, District Transport Officer. The District Transport Officer was quick to ascertain that the said driving licence had not been issued by him and it was a forged one. Bodh Raj told the District Transport Officer that he got this driving license made from Baga Studio, Balachaur. Thereafter, the District Transport Officer filed the complaint with the police, thereby reporting the forgery of the license in question. -4- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 The investigation of the matter was entrusted to Assistant Sub Inspector Padam Nabh. During the investigation, he discovered that the petitioners and their accomplices, namely, Varinder Kumar, Mohan Lal, Gurdial Singh, Bhola, Sukhi and Bindi had formed a gang and that they used to prepare fake driving licneses by forging signatures of the District Transport Officer. They used to deliever these driving licenses to the public after getting money from them. Accused-petitioner Sohan Lal was arrested in this case and five driving licenses prepared in the names of Rajinder Kumar, Raj Kumar, Hardev Singh son of Swaran Singh, Hardev Singh son of Sampuran Singh and Rampal were recovered from his possession along with one rubber seal of the District Transport Officer Hoshiarpur. Some photographs and one learning license of Harjeet Singh were also recovered. These articles were taken into possession by the police. Similarly, accused-petitioner Kishan Singh was arrested in this case on 10.06.1993 by the Investigation Officer. Fake driving licenses of Rajinder Singh, Satnam Singh, Satish Kumar, Jhujhar Singh were recovered from his possession which were seized by the police. Besides two learning driving licenses and four applications were also recovered from his possession, which were also seized by the police. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in Court by the police against the accused. -5- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. They did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The trial Court, after recording evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defence evidence of the accused and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as afore-mentioned. Their appeals were partly allowed by the lower appellate Court as the petitioners were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 420 and 471 of the Code. However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 474 of the Code, as afore-mentioned, were maintained by the lower appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In this case, the District Transport Officer A.P.S. Sarkaria is the complainant. While deposing in Court, he narrated the prosecution version, as given above. He had detected the fake driving licence of Bodh Raj, which had been prepared under his forged signatures and reported the matter to the police. During investigation by the police, five fake driving licenses prepared in the names of Rajinder Kumar, Raj Kumar, Hardev Singh son of Swaran Singh, Hardev Singh son of Sampuran Singh and Rampal were recovered from the possession of petitioner Sohan Lal along with one rubber seal of the District Transport Officer -6- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 Hoshiarpur. Some photographs and one fake learning license of Harjeet Singh were also recovered by the police from his (Sohan Lal's) possession. Likewise, fake driving licenses of Rajinder Singh, Satnam Singh, Satish Kumar, Jhujhar Singh were recovered by the police from the possession of petitioner-accused Kishan Singh. In addition to this, two fake learning driving licenses and four applications for forging such licences were recovered from his (Kishan Singh's) possession. Thus, the petitioners, knowing the said driving licences to be forged documents had the intention to fraudulently and dishonestly use the same as genuine documents as had been done by them in the case of aforesaid Bodh Singh. Section 474 of the Code, for facility of reference,is reproduced as below:- “Whoever has in possession any document, knowing the same to be forged, and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document is one of the description mentioned in Section 466 of this Code, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned is Section 467, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to -7- Criminal Revision No.1840 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.1842 of 2001 fine.” A perusal of the above-quoted provisions of Section 474 of the Code reveals that the ingredients for making out the offence under this Section are that a person has in his possession a forged document; that he has the knowledge that the same is a forged document; and that he intends to use the same fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine. The above- mentioned facts make it abundantly clear that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the aforesaid ingredients. No fault can, thus, be found with the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order as recorded by the trial Court against the petitioners under Section 474 of the Code and upheld by the lower appellate Court. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. These revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. March 29, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE