-1- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. Date of Decision: March 16, 2010. Sohan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kalia, Advocate, for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the Union Territory, Chandigarh. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Sohan Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for three years, which was under Section 467 of the Code, as all the -2- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total fine imposed upon the petitioner for these offences was Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order recorded by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. It was also ordered by the lower appellate Court that the petitioner in case of non-payment of fine, which was Rs.5,000/- (Rs.1,000/- on each count i.e under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Code), shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under each count. As noticed above, the trial Court had ordered the petitioner to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for non-payment of whole of the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- by the Punjab Financial Corporation (for short `the Corporation') for purchasing a bus. A condition had been imposed upon the petitioner by the Corporation (stipulation No.3 of the sanction letter) that he would advance a sum of Rs.92,000/- to the supplier of the vehicle before disbursement of loan. The petitioner produced receipts at the head office of the Corporation in Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, alleged to have been issued by M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar, in token of of payment of Rs.92,000/- by the petitioner to them and -3- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. thereby attempted to receive a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- from the Corporation. On an inquiry, it was revealed that the receipts produced by petitioner Sohan Singh regarding payment of Rs.92,000/- to M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar were forged and false. The invoice which was allegedly issued by M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar, in favour of M/s. Virk Bus Service had also been forged by the petitioner by adding his name and also by making alteration in the date of issue of invoice with an intent to deceive the Corporation. Thus, a written complaint was sent by the Corporation to the Station House Officer, Sector 17- B, Chandigarh, leading to the registration of the instant case against the petitioner. The Corporation also attached photo- copies of the receipts and the invoice with the complaint. To prove its case against the accused-petitioner, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner pleaded false implication simpliciter. He did not produce any defence evidence, oral or documentary. The trial Court, finding sufficient evidence against the petitioner, convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned above. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The receipts Exhibit P.E for Rs.52,000/- and Exhibit P.F for Rs.40,000/- showing payment having been made by the petitioner to M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar and -4- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. invoice Exhibit P.W.5/1 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- allegedly issued by M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar in favour of M/s. Virk Bus Service were the forged documents submitted with the Corporation by the petitioner for obtaining a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- for purchase of a passenger bus. It is not denied by the petitioner that he applied for the loan. In fact, he admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the statement of B.S. Narang (P.W.5), General Manager of the Corporation, it is established that a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide order Exhibit P.O. It stands proved on record that the petitioner had produced receipt Exhibit P.E for Rs.52,000/-, receipt Exhibit P.F for Rs.40,000/- and invoice Exhibit P.W.5/1 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- before the Corporation for obtaining the loan amount of Rs.1,89,000/-. Raj Kumar (P.W.4), Junior Engineer of the Corporation, had received photo-stat copies of the receipts Exhibits P.E and P.F from the petitioner and had produced the same in Court at the time of his deposition in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the originals of Exhibits P.E and P.F did not see light of the day and it casts a doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution version against the petitioner. After giving a careful thought to this argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner, I do not see any merit therein. There is no mention in the statement of Raj Kumar (P.W.4) that the petitioner had produced before him the originals of Exhibits P.E and P.F. When there is no mention of -5- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. the original receipts in the statement of Raj Kumar (P.W.4), who received the same and tendered in evidence those very receipts which were received by him, there remains no doubt that only Photostat copies of the receipts had been submitted by the petitioner. Insofar as invoice (Exhibit P.W.5/1), it has been testified by D.P. Tiwari (P.W.8), Junior Manager (Legal) of the Corporation that it was supplied by the accused to S.C.Sharma, Manager of the Corporation along with his letter Exhibit P.H. The signatures of S.C. Sharma in lieu of receipt of the application (Exhibit P.H) and the documents attached to it were identified by D.P. Tiwari (P.W.8). There is mention of submission of the invoice with the application/letter Exhibit P.H submitted by the petitioner. Without dilating any further on the issue, suffice to say - the fact that the receipts Exhibits P.E and P.F and invoice Exhibit P.W.5/1 were, on inquiry, found not to have been issued by by M/s. Skyways Coach Builders, Jalandhar, clinches the issue against the petitioner-accused. He has, thus, rightly been convicted by the Courts below. In view of the above, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Code, as recorded by the Courts below is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than twenty three and a half years, the F.I.R being of 2.6.1986, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of maximum three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the -6- Criminal Revision No.1289 of 2001. petitioner for the aforesaid offences, as mentioned above, is reduced to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and the default case are left unaltered. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. March 16, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE