1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2001 (Old No. 24 of 2000) Chandra Shekhar S/O Shri Ram Babu Lavania, R/O 52/71, Bara Khamba Road Patwar Colony, Near Shahganj, District Agra. ……………. Revisionist Versus State of U.P State of Uttarakhand …………..opposite party Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate present for the revisionist Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 22.12.1999, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge Dehradun, in criminal appeal no 14 of 1991, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal of revisionist Chandra Shekhar affirming his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun) under section 466 read with section 120-B, under section 468 read with section 120- B, under section 471 read with 120-B and under section 420/511 read with 120-B, I.P.C. 2 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that on 23.03.1988, before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, Advocate Rajeswar Prasad Garg (PW5) presented a document purporting to be order from the Supreme Court of India in criminal revision no. 157 of 1988 wherein it was mentioned that the accused Omprakash and Chandra Prakash (convicts who were undergoing life imprisonment) were directed to be released on bail , and it was prayed to the Sessions Judge that amount of bail bond be fixed. Learned Sessions Judge Saharanpur suspected the genuineness of the document and made enquiry from the Registry of the Supreme Court from where vide letter-dated 06.04.1988 it was conveyed that the alleged order is a forged one. The Supreme Court further directed that the matter be reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation ( for short CBI) for investigation. The C.B.I Investigated the crime. According to C.B.I in the investigation it was found that on 20th of March 1988, accused Amir Ahmad@ Babu Khan met accused Som Prakash in Agra jail and told that he can get arranged the bail orders of the convicts Om Prakash and Chandra Pal (relatives of SomPrakash on payment of Rs. 10,000/- for each one 3 of them). On this Som Prakash met his relatives in the Agra Central jail and again contacted Amir Ahmad @ Babu Khan. After making arrangement of the amount as demanded by Amir Ahmad @ Babu Khan, Som Prakash went to the place of Amir Ahmad in Agra where present revisionist Chandra Shekar was in his house, who prepared the forged order purporting to be passed by the Supreme Court. Another accused Sukhdev was in possession of the seals to be used in the document. One more accused Rashid was also found involved in the crime who was made accomplish by the CBI with the permission of the court. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused Om Prakash, Chandra Pal, Som Prakash, Chandra Shekar(present revisionist) Amir Ahmad @ Babu Khan and Sukhdev for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 420/511, 466, 468, 471 read with section 120 I.P.C. (4) The trial court after giving necessary copies, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed a charge of offences mentioned above to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Rashid @ raju (approver), PW2 Shiv Sahay, PW3 Bipin Kumar, PW4 Vijay Kishore, PW5 Rajeshwar Prasad Garg 4 (Advocate), PW6 Narendra Singh Malik, PW7 Naresh Kumar, PW8 Har Prasad Sharma, PW9 Sushil Kumar, PW10 Suresh Kumar PW11 H.C.Sharma, PW12 Jasbir Singh Bahra, PW13 H.L.Bhatia, PW14 Bachan Singh, PW15 Mahesh Chand Sharma (typist), PW16 R.K. Jain (hand writing expert), PW17 Munnilal, PW18 Justice V.N. Mehrotra(who was Sessions Judge at the time the bail order was presented) and PW19 Yogendra Singh Investigation Officer. The oral evidence and the documentary evidence (exhibit 1A to exhibit A5) were put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. In defence on behalf of accused DW1 Subash, DW2 Hukum Singh, DW3 Padam Singh, DW4 Jasbir Singh, DW5 Virendra Singh, PW6 Sukhvir Singh (co-accused), DW7 Som Prakash(co-accused) and DW7 Om Prakash were examined and documents exhibit B1 to exhibit B5 were also produced. The trial court after hearing the parties found the accused Amir Ahmad and Chandra Shekhar (present revisionist) guilty of offences punishable under section 466 read with section 120B, I.P.C, under section 468 read with section 120B, I.P.C, under section 471 read with section 120B, I.P.C and under section 420/511 read with 120-B I.P.C. (other accused namely Om Prakash Chandrapal and Som 5 Prakash were also convicted). After hearing on the point of sentence on the first three counts mentioned above the present revisionist Chandra Shekhar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and on the fourth count mentioned above he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Amir Ali was also awarded similar sentences. Chandra Shekhar (present revisionist) filed criminal appeal no 14 of 1991 before Sessions Judge Dehradun against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1991, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in criminal case no 1348 of 1989. The said appeal appears to have been transferred to the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who heard the matter and dismissed the appeal, affirming conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence this revision was filed before Allahabad High court on 5th of January 2000, from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000(Central Act No. 29 of 2000). (5) Having gone through the record of the case, this court finds that both the courts below have discussed the evidence on record at length before concluding that the accused Chandra Shekhar (present revisionist) in conspiracy with Amir Ali and other accused prepared 6 the forged bail order, purporting to have been issued by the Supreme Court for getting released the life convicts namely Om Prakash and ChandraPal. This court in its revisional jurisdiction not inclined to re appreciate the evidence on record, which is strong, and clinching against the present revisionist. There appears no illegality committed by the trial court or by the appellate court in convicting the accused on the charges mentioned above, and affirming the same. (6) Learned counsel for the present revisionist submitted that accused Som Prakash was given benefit of Probation of offenders Act. It is pleaded that the present revisionist should have also been given benefit of said Act. Having gone through the records, this court finds that the role of the Amir Ali and Chandra Shekhar are much more serious as compared to the others. Chandra Shekhar is said to have prepared the order. His role cannot be equated even Som Prakash. Otherwise, also considering the facts of the case this court is of the view that the present revisionist does not deserve to be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. However, considering the long period of litigation the sentence awarded by the trial court on the first three counts i.e. under section 466/120-B I.P.C, under section 468/120-B I.P.C, under section 471/120- 7 B I.P.C can be reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each counts which shall run concurrently. Sentence under section 420/511 I.P.C read with section 120-B I.P.C does not required any interference. (7) For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is dismissed, to the extent conviction is recorded by the courts below against the present revisionist Chandra Shekhar but on the point of sentence revision stands disposed of with the modification that on each of the counts the trial court has convicted Chandra Shekhar (present revisionist) sentence would be rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, which shall run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to make the revisionist serve out remaining part of sentence awarded against him. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.13.5.2010 N.P