Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.2.2011 Naresh Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) On 22.8.1994 an interview for Trisome training was conducted in District Rural Development Agency, Ferozepur, by the ADC. The petitioner/accused, Naresh Kumar S/o Jagdish Lal, appeared in that interview on the basis of yellow card bearing No. FF-299 purported to have been issued from Ferozepur block. A doubt was entertained about the genuineness of that card and it was found that the same had never been issued by BDPO by whom the same purports to have been issued. For having prepared that forged yellow card and using the same to be genuine, letter was written by Sukhdev Singh BDPO PW3 to the S.H.O of police Station City Ferozepur Ex.PW3/A and on the basis thereof formal FIR was recorded under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The matter was investigated and in the course of investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded and copies of the relevant documents were taken into possession. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -2- before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that Jagdish Lal-accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 whereas the present accused Naresh Kumar committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Singh, Superintendent Office of BDPO PW1, Sajjan Singh ASI PW2, Sukhdev Raj Sharma-complainant PW3 and Bhupinder Singh PCS PW4. After the close of the prosecution evidence both the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances. It was stated by Jagdish Lal-accused that he was having enmity with BDPO and was not on good terms with him as he had been asking him to do wrongful acts, which he was not doing. Similar plea was taken by Naresh Kumar-accused. They were called upon to enter on the defence, but they did not produce any evidence. After going through the prosecution evidence and hearing learned Assistant P.P for the State and learned counsel for the accused, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 14.12.2000, convicted Jagdish Lal accused for the offence 468 IPC and Naresh Kumar accused for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and sentenced them as under:- Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -3- Sr. No. Name of the accused Under Section Conviction and Sentence 1 Jagdish Lal 468 IPC To undergo R.I for three years and to pay a fine of `500/- as fine and in default thereof to further undergo RI for one month. 2 Naresh Kumar 471 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for one month. Both of them preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment dated 16.11.2005. The petitioner/accused has preferred the present revision petition against that conviction and sentence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that from the facts proved by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the accused committed offence under Section 471 IPC. There is no evidence for proving that the accused had the knowledge that the yellow card was forged one and in the absence of that evidence he could not have been convicted for that offence. He also tried to argue that no evidence was produced for proving that this yellow card is forged one. He tried to refer to the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution for proving that the records pertaining to this card have been intentionally withheld by them and there was an entry of this yellow card in relevant register. The re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in this revision petition unless it is shown by the accused that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse or illegal or are based Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -4- upon no evidence or misreading of the evidence. After having gone through the evidence so produced by the prosecution, this Court has come to the conclusion that there is no such misreading of evidence nor the findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court are perverse or illegal. This yellow card purports to have been issued by the BDPO, Ferozepur. Sukhdev Singh was the BDPO at the relevant time, who was examined as PW1. He has specifically stated that the yellow card was not issued by him and the same does not bear his signatures. He also made a statement on other aspects of the case. He was cross-examined by the accused on the other aspects, but was never cross-examined so far as his statement that this card was never issued by him and this card does not bear his signatures, is concerned. From his unchallenged statement, it stands proved that this yellow card was never issued by him and does not bear his signatures. According to Sukhdev Singh, Superintendent, PW1, the yellow card so used by Naresh Kumar -accused is in the handwriting of Jagdish Lal-accused. He also deposed that he is conversant with the handwriting of Jagdish Lal as they had been working in the same office. Even that part of the statement of that witness was never challenged during his cross- examination. Jagdish Lal had no business to prepare this yellow card as he was never posted in the office of the BDPO. From that evidence of the prosecution it stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt that yellow card was forged one. According to Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever fradulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -5- or has reason to believe to be a forged is liable to be punished. The prosecution might have failed to prove that Naresh Kumar had the knowledge that the yellow card was forged, but there is sufficient evidence on the record for coming to the conclusion that this accused had reason to believe that the said card was forged document and he dishonestly used the same. The son is always conversant with the handwriting of his father. The fact that the card was in the handwriting of his father, when the same is not supposed to be in his handwritting, the same was bound to arouse suspician in the mind of the accused that the card was not genuine. Thus it can easily be held that he had reason to believe that this yellow card was a forged document. Bhupinder Singh PW4 has made categorical statement during the trial that this accused Naresh Kumar had admitted during the interview that the Yellow Card being used by him was a forged document. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve that officer who had no animus against the accused and himself was present at the time of interview. Correct findings were recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence so produced and which were upheld by the appellate Court. No ground is made out for interfering in those findings while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused deserves some concession, being a young boy who was at the threshold of his carrer at the date of commission of offence and who has stood protracted trial for all these years. He prayed that the sentence so imposed upon him be reduced. Keeping in view that the accused stood his trial for all these years Crl. Rev. No. 2189 of 2005 (O&M) -6- and that his position in life, the sentence of two years so imposed is reduced to one year. With the said modification, this revision petition is hereby disposed of. Accused be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining sentence. Records be returned forthwith. February 14, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge