Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 04, 2011 1. Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 Gian Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent 1. Crl. Revision No. 3287 of 2010 Gian Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. By this order I will dispose of two Criminal Revisions bearing Nos. 3287 and 3288 of 2010 since they emanate from the same set of facts. The main case being Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 is being decided on merits since that would materially affect the judgment of the second case bearing Crl. Revision No. 3287 of 2010. Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 2 The petitioner was originally charged under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC for having attempted to commit fraud. However, his co-accused were also charged for committing forgery. All of them were found guilty. In appeal against the conviction and sentence the learned Appellate Court held that in fact the charge against forgery should also have been framed against the petitioner because the evidence in respect of the offence of forgery was identical as far as all the accused were concerned. With this reasoning the learned Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case back to the trial Cout for fresh decision after framing a charge of forgery against the petitioner also. Learned counsel has argued that in fact a perusal of the entire evidence would show that the petitioner is not at all guilty either of the original charges or of the amended charge. He has relied upon the fact that the person who was allegedly defrauded had filed an affidavit before the Appellate Court wherein he had prayed for compounding of the offence. As an aside it must be mentioned here that the prayer for compounding was declined by this Court and a Special Leave Petition against the said order is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Of course, if that petition is ultimately allowed this whole exercise would be rendered nugatory. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that in view of these facts, firstly the order of the Appellate Court directing the trial Court to frame charge of forgery against the petitioner should be set aside. His second prayer is that the transaction is of the year 1994 and, therefore, the matter is much delayed. As per learned counsel since one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution is right to speedy justice, the petitioner should not be forced to Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 3 face this trial since he is 72 years of age. The third argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it would be appropriate if the trial is stayed during the pendency of the matter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As regards the first argument it cannot be denied that the evidence appearing against all the persons is identical and either they are all liable for conviction or they are all entitled to acquittal. Thus, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Appellate Court. As regards the second argument learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Nanak Chand v. State of Haryana 2000(1) AICLR 242 wherein it was held as follows:- “2. Relying upon the judgment of this court as well Full Bench decision of Patna High Court I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. In fact the petitioner is suffering the agony of criminal proceedings since 1983. So much so, after his conviction, which was recorded by the Magistrate on 13/14.1.1995, he filed an appeal and his contention was accepted by the Appellate Court vide order dated 3.2.1997. In the opinion of this court, the Appellate Court was not justified in remanding the case after a lapse of 14 years. A serious prejudice has already been caused to the petitioner. The Appellate Court should have straight way given the benefit of Article 21 of the Constitution and acquitted the petitioner Nanak Chand instead of remanding the case.” In my opinion no such absolute proposition of law as is being canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner can be laid down. It must be noticed that in the present case the appeal of the petitioner has not been allowed on merits yet the petitioner has not been subjected to sentence meted out to him by the trial Court. Crl. Revision No. 3288 of 2010 4 In the circumstances the delay has actually not worked to the prejudice of the petitioner. Further the learned Appellate Court has considered this aspect of delay and learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the view taken by the learned Appellate Court is perverse in any manner. As regards the third argument, suffice it to say that the matter has come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.11.2010. On that date the impugned order was well in existence. It was open to the petitioner(as indeed it is open to him even today) to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a prayer for interim relief if he so desires. Consequently this revision is dismissed. Once that is so the accompanying Crl. Revision No. 3287 of 2010 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner has also to be necessarily dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 04, 2011 sunita