IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 Date of decision: September 16, 2010 Ram Sarup .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 471 IPC. The case relates to the forgery of the fake registration for stolen cars. The case has unique history. Initially, a case was registered on a secret information on 28.11.1994 to the effect that Gurpreet Singh son of Inder Singh alias Mithu resident of Kunail, P.S. Garh Shankar at present residing at Mohali, Ram Sarup Chaudhary son of Diwan Chand Khatri, resident of House NO.1015, Phase IV, Mohai, Rajinder Kumar alias Raju (since acquitted) resident of H.No.2479, Rajpura Town, Sanjeev Kumar alias Neeta son of Mohan Lal resident of village Baghaur, P.S. Samrala and Harinder Singh alias Sidhu son of Gurnek Singh resident of Sidhpur Kalan, P.S. Khamano were indulging in the acts of committing theft of cars and scooters etc. and bringing the same from other States and after preparing fabricated documents were selling the same and if raid is conducted, the cars and the scooters stolen from various States and the forged documents could be recovered from them. Believing the information to be reliable, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 -2- on 28.11.1994 against the accused. During investigation, accused Rajinder Kumar alias Raju was arrested on 2.12.1994, who pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PC got recovered a brief case from his house containing forged affidavit of Inderjit Singh son of Balraj Thakur resident of House No.3189, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh written on a stamp paper of Rs.2/-. The affidavit Ex.P2 of Sukhwinder Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of House No.219, Tagore Nagar, Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur., One affidavit of Ram Sarup Chaudhary son of Diwan Chand Chaudhary resident of House No.380, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh along with registration No.CHA 1034 of Fiat Car, partnership deed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- containing signatures of Sawtanter Chaudhary, partnership deed Ex.P6 containing the signatures of Harpreet Singh Bali and Ram Sarup Chaudhary accused attested by Rajinder Gavri and one photo copy of insurance of car No.DNC 5312, one agreement over a stamp paper of Rs.20/- by Ram Sarup Chaudhary and Manjit Singh of Bhagat Singh Colony, Rajpura, one photo copy over a stamp paper of Rs.1000/- containing address of Sub Registrar, Kharar and photo copy of the partnership deed containing signatures of Surinder Kaur. Registration certificate of scooter bearing registration No.CHT2120, one duplicate registration of scooter No.CHB4836, duplicate registration of scooter No.CHH-8613, registration certificate of car No.PHV 1081, driving licence of Rajinder Kumar, one driving licence No.R-78270-91 dated 23.9.1991 of Raj Kumar, one driving licence No.5433 of Khem Chand son of Kirpa Ram, driving licence of Balwinder Singh son of Harbans Singh, driving licence of Ram Kumar son of Parbh Dayal, one learning licence of Paramjit Singh son of Jagga Singh resident of Mundian, District Patiala were produced. The aforesaid documents were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PD. A letter Ex.PE was written to the Registering Authority, Garh Shankar, regarding registration No.PB-24-2857 regarding maruti car, but the Registering Authority vide endorsement Ex.PE/1 informed that the same has not been issued by their office and that number is lying vacant in their record. Another letter Ex.PF was written to the Licencing Authority, Una to enquire that whether licence No.18926 relating to Rajinder Singh son of Ram Dass and Raj Kumar son of Shiv Ram were genuine, but vide report Ex.PF/1, the authority informed that the same were forged and fabricated. During investigation accused Ram Sarup Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 -3- and Harpreet Singh alias Inder were apprehended at a picket at the bridge of Doomchheri while they were going on their car. When the first car which was found without number plate was checked, it was detected that Ram Sarup accused was driving the same who produced duplicate registration No.PB-24-2857 Ex.P-8 which was in the name of Sukhwinder Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of House No.219, Tagore Nagar, Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur. The other car which was stopped was bearing Chassis No.SB 208-IN-137224 and Engine No.EEBIN-179215. The other car which was without number plate was recovered from Harpreet Singh alias Inder and on checking he could not produce any paper and the car was having Engine No.FBBIN-284415 and Chassis No.SB308IN210619. Treating both the vehicles to be stolen property, the same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. The accused was charged under Section 471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Bhupinder Singh (PW1), Ramesh Chand (PW2), Anil Kumar Sharma (PW3), SI Sukhjit Singh (PW4), ASI Rattan Singh (PW5), Sukhdev Singh (PW6), SI Bhupinder Singh (PW7), Bal Krishan (PW8), Ramesh Dutt Sharma (PW9) and ASI Janak Singh (PW10). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that he had a dispute with Harpreet Singh and he was arrested from Chandigarh along with his car No.CHA-1034 and was implicated in this false case. The trial ended in conviction of the accused Ram Sarup, however, during the pendency of the trial, the accused Rajinder Kumar was declared as Proclaimed Offender. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel that the accused was the owner of the car bearing registration No.CHA-1934, I do not find any substance in the same as the registration certificate was recovered from the house of Rajinder Kumar (since proclaimed offender) on Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 -4- the basis of the disclosure statement Ex.PC along with other affidavits of various persons for transfer of vehicles. I also do not find any merit in the argument that though there were number of houses from where the recovery was effected but no independent witness was associated, as the recovery was made on the basis of the disclosure statement Ex.PC and despite efforts, no witness offered to join the police party. As regards the contradiction in the statements of the witnesses that the car was without number plate or the car was bearing registration No.PB-24-2857, it may be observed that the same are immaterial and hardly effect the prosecution case. It has come on record that the Registering Authority, Garh Shankar, vide its report Ex.PE/1, disclosed that the registration No.PB-24-2857 is lying vacant in their record. Further more, Bhupinder Singh (PW1) Clerk from the office of S.D.M. Garh Shankar has categorically testified that the registration No.PB-24-2857 was allotted for a Bajaj Chetak Scooter. No plausible defence has been led in order to prove that the documents in their possession were not fabricated one and they were using the same being genuine. Both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the accused was apprehended on 7.11.1994 and he was found driving car bearing registration No.PB-24-2857 which was not having a genuine number and he was driving the same on the forged registration certificate. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very limited in nature. It has been observed by the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. Further, on the issue, it held as under :- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 -5- of the evidence, at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the appellant. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Similarly, while discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under :- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” Criminal Revision No.1845 of 2003 -6- In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. The sentence awarded also commensurates with the offence committed. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgments. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar for compliance. September 16, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge