Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 Date of Decision: October 26, 2009 Mohinder Singh .......Petitioner Versus U.T.Chandigarh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.S.Marwaha, Advocate with Ms.Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Standing counsel for UT Chandigarh. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby judgment, dated 22.12.2000, passed by the trial Court was partly upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence under Section 419 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 -2- imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 465 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 468 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Sections 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was partly affirmed. 2. The present revision was admitted on 1.12.2003 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Sita Ram is the principal accused who was beneficiary of the certificate which is stated to be forged in the present case. The only role assigned to the petitioner is that he obtained copy of the certificate from the University, which is not otherwise proved on record. From the statement of Amarjit, Assistant Section Officer, it is clear that the original letter was given to Constable Mohinder Singh, CID Branch, Chandigarh Police and not to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner being the younger brother of co-accused Sita Ram just accompanied him to various offices and did not play any role in forging the alleged document. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 21 years. The occurrence took place more than 25 years ago. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone one month of imprisonment. 7. It has come in the statement of Amarjit, PW that the certificate was collected by Constable Mohinder Singh. This statement was recorded Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 -3- after a lapse of 14 years. The principal accused Sita Ram preferred Crl. Revisions No.2315, 2316 and 2317 of 2003 in this Court wherein his sentence has been reduced to the period already undergone with a consolidated fine of Rs.25,000/-. 8. The present petitioner has been facing trial only for the reason that he accompanied his brother Sita Ram and might have assisted and obeyed his elder brother without any motive and without understanding the nature and gravity of his act . 9. As per the case of the prosecution, one Sita Ram son of Shera Ram procured a duplicate certificate of matriculation belonging to one Sita Ram son of Tej Ram. The said Sita Ram tampered with the column reflecting the father's name. On the basis of said certificate, he obtained a job in the office of Home Secretary, U.T. in the year 1975-76. 10. Subsequently, a complaint was received in this regard and an enquiry was conducted by PW6 ASI Mangat Ram. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied Sita Ram to get the report from the University when the change of name from Sita Ram son of Tej Ram to Sita Ram son of Shera Ram was effected and the same was handed over to Mangat Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1987-88, another enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department on the same facts and in this enquiry Sita Ram was not found guilty. 11. During investigation, it came to light that Sita Ram went to Government School, Jaiton and procured certificate in the name of Sita Ram son of Tej Ram, who, in fact, had passed the matriculation examination. 12. Three challans were filed in the present case. The first challan was only against Sita Ram. In the second challan, it surfaced that Sita Ram, Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 -4- in connivance with the petitioner, procured the report from the University on 14.1.1986 and thereafter by changing the name forged the certificate. In challan No.2, one Shri Amarjit, Clerk of the University was examined as PW4. He has not made any allegation against Mohinder Singh. 13. As ASI Mangat Ram in his first enquiry had helped accused Sita Ram in order to save himself and Sita Ram, petitioner Mohinder Singh was falsely roped in as he being younger brother accompanied Sita Ram to the University. In the third challan, Amar Nath, a Senior Teacher from Jaiton, was examined. In his examination-in-chief, it has come out that Sita Ram went to the school and posed himself as Hari Chand, local commissioner and procured the record from the school. Amar Nath identified Sita Ram in the open Court, whereas he did not support the case in respect of Mohinder Singh. 14. The State counsel does not dispute the position that Sita Ram accused was the beneficiary of forged certificate in question because he obtained job on the basis of said certificate and that Mohinder Singh did not play any role in the forging of alleged certificate. Citation part 15. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied Sita Ram, his cousin, to the University when Sita Ram procured the matriculation certificate. The petitioner is not an accused in challan No.1 pertaining to the same certificate. There is no reference of the petitioner in challan No.3 as well. He appears to be the victim of his brother who wanted to secure a job through foul means. The petitioner was not put any question at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl. Revision No.2311 of 2003 -5- 16. In the circumstances, I am inclined to take a lenient view. The petitioner is granted probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he is not a previous convict or habitual offender. There is no complaint against his conduct during the trial and many persons are dependent upon his earnings. 17. In view of the above, the judgment and order of the learned Courts below is upheld and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year, within which he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve the remaining part of sentence as and when called for. 18 Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 7.11.2003 and that of the trial Court dated 22.12.2000 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) October 26, 2009 JUDGE mk/srm Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No