IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2129 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 22, 2009 Sardool Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. G.P.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, AAG, Punjab. S.D. Anand, J (Oral) The petitioner (Sardool Singh) was convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate on an upheld charge that he impersonated one Darshan Singh in the matter of obtaining the release of a motor vehicle, of which Darshan Singh aforementioned was the registered owner, on superdari. The plea for the release of vehicle aforementioned on superdari was filed by Darshan Singh on 19.10.1996. It was otherwise proved, as a fact, that Darshan Singh aforementioned died Crl. Revision No.2129 of 2009 on 20.01.1995. Death certificate of Darshan Singh (Ex.P1) was placed on record. Two others (Himat Singh and Sarabjit Singh) were tried with the petitioner-accused but they were able to earn a verdict of acquittal. The petitioner, though acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted for offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 IPC. He was sentenced as under:- U/S 419 IPC To undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. U/S 468 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. U/S 471 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. In appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upheld the finding of conviction and also order qua sentence, granted by the learned Trial Court. 2 Crl. Revision No.2129 of 2009 The petitioner – accused is in revision against the order granted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that though he does not dispute the correctness of the finding of conviction, he would request for the release of the petitioner accused on probation of good conduct and for dilution on point of sentence, in view of the fact that the petitioner accused is presently aged 73 years and has already undergone sentence for a period of little more than three months. In that very context, it is pointed out that the petitioner faced trial for a period of 12 years. It is also pointed that that there was no wrongful loss to the estate of the deceased as his wife had testified at the trial that the vehicle got released on superdari is intact. In support of the view aforementioned, the learned counsel draws sustenance from 2002(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 223, Gyan Chand Sharma vs. State and 1999(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 863, Dharampal vs. State of Haryana. The learned State counsel contests the validity of the plea. It is pointed out that the petitioner aggravated the charge by having impersonated a dead person. It is also argued that the question of wrongful gain or loss would 3 Crl. Revision No.2129 of 2009 seem to lose relevance in view of the proven charge that it was a case of impersonation of a dead person. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar, and also in view of the fact that the finding of conviction is buttressed by the material obtaining on the file, I have no hesitation in affirming it. I do not feel persuaded to grant the plea on behalf of the petitioner –accused for his release on probation of good conduct. The reasons therefor are as under:- The petitioner-accused has been proved to have impersonated a dead person. He had thereby obtained the release of the vehicle on superdari. Though impersonation, by itself, is a grave allegation, the gravity thereof is aggravated by the fact that the person impersonated in this case was already dead. The proven act on behalf of the petitioner – accused is indicative of his criminal mind set. That he opted to impersonate a dead person is indicative of the fact that he entertained a feeling that he would be able to get away with it because the person impersonated was not living and he would not be able to expose him at the trial. The entertainment of such a notion does not augur well for the system of dispensation of justice. If the petitioner – accused is ordered to be released on probation, it will send wrong signal to the community at large. 4 Crl. Revision No.2129 of 2009 The mere fact that the petitioner – accused is aged about 73 years is not a valid ground, per se, to release him on probation and the same applies to the fact that he had undergone sentence for a period of three months. In fact, I get a feeling that the petitioner – accused has already been dealt with leniently and the grant of any further benefit, in terms of dilution on point of sentence, would amount to travesty of justice. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were based on entirely different facts and are, accordingly, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Gyan Chand Sharma’s case (supra), the accused had not impersonated a dead person. In Dharampal’s case (supra) the impersonation was not of a dead person. There is, thus, no commonality of facts involved in those cases and the case pending before this Court. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The finding of conviction and also the sentence awarded to the petitioner – accused shall stand affirmed. October 22, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5 Crl. Revision No.2129 of 2009 6