Criminal Revision No.300 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION NO.300 OF 2005 Harjit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) ... Respondents Decided on : November 17, 2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Bimal Chandan Bitta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory Chandigarh. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Trial Court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh) vide its judgment dated 8.7.1999 convicted Harjit Singh – accused/ petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, on each count. However, in appeal, the Appellate Authority (Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh) vide its judgment dated 19.1.2005 acquitted him of the offences under Section 420 and 468 IPC, while maintaining the conviction under Section 471 IPC and reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months, which has been challenged by him by way of the instant petition. In brief, the version of the prosecution is that on 21.5.1995, the petitioner approached Inspector Parmod Kumar (Traffic Staff, Chandigarh) for getting his truck released under the order of a Court. The vehicle had Criminal Revision No.300 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] been impounded under challan No.2055/32 of 20.5.1995 on the allegations of its driving during prohibited hours and that too without driving licence and registration certificate. Upon being asked for, the petitioner produced his driving licence before the Inspector, who suspected its genuineness and deputed Jasbir Singh to go to Gwalior for verification of the document, whereupon, it was revealed that the said driving licence was never issued by the Licencing Authority, Gwalior. On forwarding this report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the instant First Information Report was registered and the case was investigated. On filing of the charge report, the Trial Court charged the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses in all. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Arguments heard. Records perused. The collective reading of the depositions of Inspector Parmod Kumar (PW1) and Constable Jasbir Singh (PW3) along with the documentary evidence on record in the shape of the alleged driving license (Ex.P1), request made to Licencing Authority, Gwalior (Ex.PW1/A) and the report made by the Licencing Authority Gwalior (PW3/A) leaves no doubt in my mind that he forged the driving licence and presented the same before a lawful authority projecting Criminal Revision No.300 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] the same being genuine one. Since both the courts below have elaborately discussed and appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution, therefore, the same is not required to be gone into. As such, there would be no reservation to hold that the judgment of conviction passed by the Appellate Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence. In any case, while sitting in revision, the power of this court to interfere with the findings of fact is very limited and can be exercised only where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trial misconducted the proceedings. While discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be Criminal Revision No.300 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. As such, the conviction recorded by Appellate Court is maintained. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence to six months from two years, which, in my view, does not call for further interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for compliance. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE The 17th day of November, 2010 `gian'