Criminal Revision No. 2406 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2406 of 2003 Date of decision: 22-3-2010 Joginder Singh ......... Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: None for the petitioner Shri R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused Joginder Singh against the judgment /order of sentence dated 17.9.2001 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences under Section 120-B IPC, Section 419 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each default. On the same counts, his co-accused Ved Parkash, Jang Singh and Ajaib Singh were convicted and sentenced. The facts in brief are that on 16.11.1990 Hari Krishan complainant moved a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Criminal Revision No. 2406 of 2003 2 Patiala stating that he is having landed property at village Jogewala, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. It has come to his notice that some body had taken loan of Rs.83,000/- for the purchase of a tractor from Primary Co-operative Agricultural Land Development Bank, Samana in his name by mortgaging his agricultural land situated at the said village. In this way, some unknown persons have committed fraud with him as well as the bank. On the basis of this complaint, formal F.I.R. was registered. The accused were arrested. The tractor bearing registration No. PIC 7882 alongwith its certificate of registration was seized vide memo. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused persons. The accused were charged under Sections 419/420/468/471 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Sher Singh, PW-2 Maghi Singh, PW-3 Hari Krishan, PW-4 SI Wassan Singh, PW-5 Balkar Singh, PW-6 Amar Nath Verma, PW- 7 Baldev Singh Mangat, PW-8 Munshi Ram, PW-9 Bhushan Kumar, PW-10 Mewa Singh, PW-11 Gurdeep Singh, PW-12 Balwinder Pal and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Joginder Singh Criminal Revision No. 2406 of 2003 3 alongwith others as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As averred taken in the grounds of revision, the mortgage deed has not been proved and that being so, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in relying upon it. This plea is unsustainable. In the impugned judgment, it has been mentioned that “receipts mark PB, PC, PD, Mortgage deed mark PE(Ex.PW9/A), PF, Affidavits mark PH and PS, Taqavi certificate mark PK, Application for additional spare parts mark PM, PN, PP, PQ, PT, Form mark PR, PW and Mark PX did not bear his signatures.” Palpably the mortgage deed has been exhibited as PW-9/A without any objection. It implies that it has been proved in a manner as provided by law otherwise, it would not have been exhibited. It has been further pleaded that there was no evidence against the appellant with regard to the commission of offence under Sections 419, 420, 468 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. This contention is also unacceptable. Vide judgment Ex.PB and decree sheet Ex.PC the Civil Court has held that the appellant and his co-accused have committed fraud with the complainant PW-3 Hari Krishan. So no further proof is required to be produced by the prosecution and thus it is proved that the Criminal Revision No. 2406 of 2003 4 appellant alongwith his co-accused had hatched conspiracy to play fraud with complainant Hari Krishan PW-3 by illegally forging his signatures. There is nothing on the record to take a view contrary to these observations. No other material point has been taken up in the grounds of revision. Sequelly, the conviction is maintained. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1990. This incident is about 20 years old. As per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 2 months and 20 days of the actual sentence. To my mind the ends of justice will be adequately met, if the sentence is slashed to the stated extent. Accordingly the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (2 Months and 20 days)maintaining the fine on all accounts as well their default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 22, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No