Criminal Revision No.895 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.895 of 2000 Date of Decision 27.04.2010 Tahir son of Sh.Kallu ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Tahir son of Kallu, petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') impersonated himself as the accused Tahir son of Jamalu to facilitate the disposal of the case by way of compromise. Therefore, on notice, the trial Court initiated the proceedings against him under Sections 419 and 511 IPC. Consequently, he was prosecuted and vide judgment dated 03.12.1999, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 419 read with Section 511 IPC. However, on appeal, the sentence was reduced to 9 months without any alteration in the sentence of fine vide judgment dated 10.07.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal case titled as “State versus Hanif and others”, arising out of the FIR No.437 dated 25.11.1997 under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, relating to Police Station Tauru, was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, wherein one person namely Tahir son of Jamalu was also one of Criminal Revision No.895 of 2000 2 the accused. On 16.01.1999, the accused Tahir son of Jamalu was absent whereas the petitioner-accused Tahir son of Kallu impersonated himself as Tahir son of Jamalu and made an effort to mark his presence. However, on pointing out by one of the accused Sammu son of Noor Mohammad, Presiding Officer noticed that the person claiming himself to be Tahir son of Jamalu was not the same person. Rather, he, being the son of Kallu, was an impersonator, therefore, he passed the order on that very day i.e. on 16.01.1999 on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW2/A was registered against him and investigated. Ultimately, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against him. The accused was charged under Section 419 read with Section 511 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Subhan Khan as DW1. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The main stake of argument, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused never intended to impersonate accused Tahir son of Jamalu. Since he was present in the case in connection with the compromise between the parties, therefore, on call made to Tahir son of Jamalu, he answered positively as his name was also Tahir. His act was not malafide and is not accompanied by any mens-rea , therefore, no offence has been committed by him. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments Criminal Revision No.895 of 2000 3 advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same do not find any merit. There is no denying a fact that it was not the accused Tahir son of Jamalu alone in the case but there were other accused also. Counsel has urged that the case was being compromised but no such written compromise has been produced on record in order to prove that the accused Tahir son of Kallu was scribe or attesting witness of the said compromise, therefore, his presence in the court could be for no other reason but to represent the original accused Tahir son of Jamalu. The men may lie but the circumstances do not. The Court could not gather this information regarding misrepresentation by the accused-petitioner, if the co-accused Samma would not have pointed out about the impersonation made by the accused, certainly the inference with regard to the intention of the accused could well be drawn against him. The reason for making misrepresentation is apparent that the accused never wanted that in the absence of Tahir son of Jamalu, the case be not postponed, bail bond and surety bond of accused Tahir son of Jamalu be not cancelled and his arrest warrants may not be issued. Both the Courts below have duly dealt with all the points and reached the conclusion against the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to treat the judgment as illegal. As regards the quantum of sentence, since the accused tried befool and facilitate the Court to prepare a false record, therefore, no leniency could be extended to him. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. 27.04.2010 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge