Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 Date of Decision : 11.2.2011. Surjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents (2) Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2005 Date of Decision : 11.2.2011. Sham Lal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents (3) Criminal Revision No.1183 of 2005 Date of Decision : 11.2.2011. Karnail Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Munish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This judgment would dispose of above named three revisions arising out of judgment dated May 9th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 2 affirming the judgment of conviction dated April 27th, 2001 and order of sentence dated April 30th, 2001 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 420 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.500/- SI for 6 months 466 IPC RI for 5 years Rs.1000/- SI for 1 year 468 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- SI for 1 year 471 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.2500/- SI for 3 months 120-B IPC RI for 1 year Rs.250/- SI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution was launched on the complaint dated August 20th, 1999 (Exhibit PB) sent by the District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. It was stated that Surjit Singh-petitioner was confined in District Jail, Kuruskhetra in case bearing FIR No.132 dated April 22th, 1999 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/120-B IPC, Police Station Shahbad. On June 3rd, 1999, application (Exhibit P-4) was moved on behalf of Surjit Singh-petitioner by Joginder Singh Waraich, Advocate to furnish surety bonds because he was granted interim bail for a period of two months by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand, Judge Punjab & Haryana High Court by order dated June 2nd, 1999 (Exhibit PX/1). Along with the application, Joginder Singh Waraich also filed his affidavit (Exhibit P-3) to say that order of the High Court was genuine. Accordingly, Surjit Singh-petitioner was released on bail. Karnail Singh-petitioner brother of Surjit Singh stood surety for him. 3. It was further stated that vide letter No. 56451 dated August 17th, 1999 (Exhibit PW-15/A & B) of the Hon'ble High Court, he was informed that copy of the bail order dated June 2nd, 1999 purported to have been passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand was forged. 4. On the basis of complaint (Exhibit PB), present case was registered against the petitioners and one Karambir Singh, who expired during trial. Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 3 5. Sham Lal surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kuruskhetra on January 25th, 2000. He was interrogated. He made disclosure statement (Exhibit P-7) before Bishan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra in the presence of Jagdish Sub-Inspector and Prem Chand Head Constable to the effect that on June 1st, 1999 he went to Tulsi Gift House, Ambala Cantt owned by Vijay Kumar (PW-2) in order to get prepared a fabricated seal of the High Court. From there, he went to the shop of Rajinder Kumar, owner of Prabhat Press (PW-3) and got prepared the seal of the High Court. Thereafter, he got order (Exhibit PX/1) typed from Surinder Singh (PW-13) who was an employee of Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank, Kurukshetra and produced the same before Joginder Singh Waraich, Advocate and thereby he got released Surjit Singh on interim bail. In pursuance thereto, Sham Lal got recovered specimen of the seal (Exhibit P-2) and forged authority letter (Exhibit P-1) stated to be written by the High Court for collecting the seal from Rajinder Kumar. 6. On completion of the investigation and other formalities, the accused were arraigned for trial. 7. Prosecution in supported of its case examined 18 witnesses. These were:- Radha Krishan Taneja, Reader (PW-1), Vijay Kumar (PW-2), Rajinder Kumar (PW-3), Gobind Dhanda (PW- 4), Atma Ram Bishnoi (PW-5), Raj Kumar (PW-6), Anil Dhawan (PW- 7), C.R. Bhoria (PW-8), Joginder Singh Waraich (PW-9), Sat Guru (PW-10), Sanjay Kumar (PW-11), Prem Chand (PW-12), Surinder Singh (PW-13), Rulda Ram (PW-14), N.P.S. Dhillon (PW-15), Bishan Singh (PW-16), Bir Singh (PW-17) and M.C. Mehra (PW-18). 8. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. 9. In defence, Surjit Singh examined his wife Avtar Kaur (DW-1) who stated that she went to Chandigarh on the asking of Joginder Singh Waraich, Advocate for filing bail application on behalf of her husband. Thereafter, on June 2nd, 1999 she received a Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 4 telephonic message from Chandigarh that her husband was allowed interim bail. Accordingly, she along with Karnail Singh brother of her husband went to Joginder Singh Waraich for getting her husband released. 10. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, learned counsel for Surjit Singh has urged that Surjit Singh was in custody when the forged order (Exhibit PX/1) was produced by Sham Lal and his brother Karnail Singh before Sh. Joginder Singh Waraich for getting him released on interim bail. Since Surjit Singh was in custody, the forged order was only interim bail order and during the period he remained on bail, he regularly attended the proceedings of the case which is evident from the statement of Joginder Singh Waraich (PW- 9) so, question of involvement of Surjit Singh in forging the order did not arise. The prosecution also could not lead any cogent evidence to prove the involvement of Surjit Singh except that he was beneficiary of the said order. Lastly, it was also urged that if this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner, in that eventuality, the sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone, that is, 2 years and 14 days. 11. Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, representing Karnail Singh has urged that there is no evidence against Karnail Singh regarding conspiracy with Sham Lal. The only evidence against him is that he stood surety for his brother. It was also contended that Karnail Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 1 year, 2 months and 17 days and he is a patient of cancer as per the medical certificate produced on record (Annexure P-1) so, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Mr. Munish Soni, Advocate for Sham Lal has vehemently contended that from the statement of Vijay Kumar (PW- 2), Rajinder Kumar (PW-3), Prem Chand, Head Constable (PW-12) and Bishan Singh, DSP (PW-16), it is not possible to hold that petitioner got prepared the forged bail order. He has also submitted that if the conviction of the petitioner is upheld then his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, that is, 8 months and 7 Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 5 days. 13. The sum and substance of the evidence led by the prosecution is that Surjit Singh was in custody in case bearing FIR No.132. He was released on interim bail on the basis of forged bail order dated June 1st, 1999 (Exhibit PX/1) allegedly passed by this Court. It was Sham Lal who got prepared the said forged order. Vijay Kumar (PW-2), who was known to Sham Lal earlier, deposed that Sham Lal came to his shop at Ambala Cantt and asked him to accompany him to the shop of Rajinder Kumar (PW-3) who was owner of Prabhat Press Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt for preparing a seal of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Rajinder Kumar (PW-3) further corroborated the statement of Vijay Kumar and deposed that Sham Lal along with another person came to him and requested to prepare a seal but he refused to do so without production of authorization letter from the High Court. On June 2nd, 1999, Sham Lal again went to Rajinder Kumar and produced forged authority letter (Exhibit P-1) purported to have been issued by the High Court and got prepared the seal of the High Court. Its specimen is (Exhibit P-2). Not only that, Joginder Singh Waraich, Advocate (PW-9), who was counsel for Surjit Singh also testified that it was Sham Lal who produced the said order before him and assured him about its genuineness. There is no gainsaying that the order was forged one. Radha Krishan Taneja, Reader of the High Court (PW-1) has proved that no such order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand. Gobind Dhanda, Assistant Advocate General (PW-4) whose presence was marked in the said order also deposed that he never appeared in any such case. The report of the Hon'ble High Court (Exhibit PW-15/A and B) also says that the order was forged. The entire show was of Sham Lal in getting prepared the forged bail order of this Court. Obtaining the order of Hon'ble High Court fraudulently to secure the unauthorized release of an accused from jail is of course a serious offence. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 6 Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. Probably the time has come when the Courts may not treat these matters lightly and strict view is taken against the people who are involved in such fraudulent transactions. In view of this, this Court is of firm opinion that Sham Lal does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 14. So far as Surjit Singh-petitioner is concerned, undoubtedly, he was in jail when this forged order was got prepared. Of course, it related to him. Since he was not directly involved and the Courts below sentenced him with the aid of Section 120-B IPC and he has already undergone actual sentence of more than two years, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice shall be squarely met, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 15. Karnail Singh's role is only to the extent that he stood surety for his brother. He has also been convicted with the aid of Section 120-B because there was no direct nexus between him and Sham Lal in getting prepared the forged order. He has also undergone actual sentence of 1 year, 2 months and 17 days, he is a patient of cancer as per certificate of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) so, it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence imposed upon him is also reduced to the period already undergone. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, it is ordered as under:- (i) The judgments of the Courts below are maintained so far as conviction of Surjit Singh and Karnail Singh is concerned. However, the order of sentence is modified qua Surjit Singh and Karnail Singh to the extent that their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by them. Thus, the revisions filed by Surjit Singh and Karnail are allowed partly as indicated above. (ii) The judgments of the Courts below qua Sham Lal Criminal Revision No.941 of 2005 7 are upheld. The revision filed by him is dismissed. During the pendency of revision, Sham Lal was released on bail by this Court. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.2.2011 SN