Crl. Revn. No. 1701 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 1701 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 13, 2009 Dinesh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Dinesh assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. The petitioner caused an accident and gave his name as Rajbir as the petitioner had found lost driving license of Rajbir. The petitioner was arrested in the case of accident and he impersonated himself as Rajbir and also furnished bail bonds as such. However, when the petitioner absented from the Court in the accident case, notice was issued to Rajbir, who thereupon disclosed that he has been impersonated by the petitioner. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar vide judgment dated 18.10.2008 and order dated 20.10.2008, convicted the petitioner under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Appeal Crl. Revn. No. 1701 of 2009 2 preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide judgment dated 03.07.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Both the courts below, after appreciation of the evidence, have recorded concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because the said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The petitioner was arrested in the accident case and was bailed out. He gave his wrong identity as Rajbir. In statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not offer any explanation. The prosecution has led cogent evidence in the form of documentary evidence proving that the petitioner impersonated as Rajbir. The petitioner affixed his thumb impressions as Rajbir and on comparison by finger print expert, the thumb impressions have been found to be of the petitioner. Consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner with dishonest intention to implicate Rajbir falsely in the accident case, impersonated as Rajbir. The conviction of the petitioner by the trial Magistrate, as affirmed in appeal, is well founded and is, therefore, affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. However, I do not find any ground for the same. The petitioner has committed a very serious offence. He not only impersonated as Rajbir, but also when the petitioner absented from the Court, Rajbir would have to appear as accused in the accident case. Moreover, the petitioner has interfered with administration of justice. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view the nature of offence committed by the Crl. Revn. No. 1701 of 2009 3 petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 13, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE