404 Crle RevneNo 375 of 2011 kMI 10 IN THEHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CrleRevna Noe375 of 2011 08M1 Date of decisionm 1052011 DeepChand ee ePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryana espondent CORAM HONBLE MSJSTICE RITU BAHRI 1 Presentl Mr ShivKumar Advocate for the petitioner 0 Mr KshitijSharma AAG Haryana 0 I RITU BAHRI JtOrall C5 I The presentpetitionhasbeenOledagainstthejudgment and order of sentence dated passedby the Iearnedtrial Court Z whereby the petitionerwas convictedand sentencedto undergorigorous tr imprisonmentfor a periodof one year and to pay a One of Rs10001for I commission of offence under Section 466 IPC and to undergongorous CO Z for a periodof one year and to pay a One of Rs1000140r commission of offence under Section468 IPC In default of paymentof One m petitioner shall furtherundergo for a periodof one monthfor the 7 Z abovesaidoffencesin case FlR No 193dated09081996 underSections420 409 467 468 471 120 IPG registeredat Police StationChhainsa District Faridabaddated 21Ol2011 passedby the IearnedAddl SessionsJudge Faridabad theappealof the petitioner The contour of the facts in the commencement relevantfor disposalof the presentrevlslOll petitionand emanating from the record is that a complaint was movedby RajenderSinghBhati Advocateto DeputyCommissionerFaribadabdthat a suit betweenGyanChandand Sukhbir was pendingin CivilCourtsin which GyanChandand Sukhbirhad presented a Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 405 5 CrleReme Noa375 of 2011 OSMI 2e forgedmutationNo 8170dated 14111985 in collusionwith the petitionerOn the basis of this mutation an order was passedby the Court The above complaint was markedbythe DeputyCommissionerto the SM to inquireinto the matter and submitthe report The SM Ballabgarh made inquiryand found that petitionerDeepChand had enteredmutationNo 8170 dated14021995 andhadsuppliedthecopyof the saidmutationon 141995 It was foundthat mutationNo 8170dated14021995 was not enteredin the mutationbook andthe originalmutationwas in respectof salein favourof Babu 1 Lal etc and there was over writingon this mutationnumber It was also found 0 that no entryhad been madein the recordand thusDeepChancoetitionerhas 0 prepared the forgedcopy and has usurpedthe governmentfee of Rs 101 On I furtherinquiryit was foundthat petitionerhad entered in for the I year 1994495from 01091995 to 0811996 for supplyof copiesof documents Z but he hadnot mentionedaboutfeeschargedfor supplying the saidcopy Thus petitioner had embezzledthe amountof Rsl0001 whichwas not deposited byhim in the treasutySDM his enquiryreportdated I t 1806996 recommendednecessaryaction againstthe petitionerThe said Z reportreachedDC Faridabadwho videhisIetter dated08081996 sent to 550 00 Faridabadfor of case againstthe petitionerThereafter IR was 7 registered and was conductedThe petitionerDeepChandmadea Z statementas PW51Gadmitting thereinthat in the mutationregisterat PageNo 3 mutationNo 8170pertaining to KhewatNo 527 Rect No 228was enteredby him in favour of Gian Chand and Sukhbirin respectof 99 years Iease The accusedhasalsoadmittedhiswriting as wellas signatures The accusedhasalso admittedcuttingmade by him in the registerat Sr No 8170 The accused howeversubmittedthat he did not want to givespecimensignatures or writing Thereafter challanwas submittedagainstall the threeaccusedand theywere chargesheeted on 24122002 under Sections IPC 46711208IPC 46811208 IPC and4091120 IPC Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 406 CrieRevneNoa375 of 20111OSMI e3e ThereafteraccusedGian Chandand SukhbirOiedrevisionagainst the orderof chargeand the same was acceptedby the Court of Iearned AdditionalSessionsJudge Faridabad who vide his order dated 26004 the said accused Then the had preferred revision beforeHighCourt againstthe order dated2632004 and this Court stayedthe qua the said lwo accused both the accusedwere orderedto facethe trial As per the informationreceivedfrom ASI JagishRai both the C accusedwere acquittedby the AdditionalSessionsJudge Faridabad ARer 0 accusedGian Chanddied and no appealhas been Oledby the State U againstthe orderof acquittal I C5 As far as chargesagainstthe petitionerare concerned the examinedas manyas 8 witnesses PWl RajinderSinghAdvocate Z who is the who testitledthat on 1161995 he went to the omceof AreaPabNariChhainsaandaskedfor the copyof mutationNo 8170prepared on 1421995 DalipKumar Palwaritold him that mutationNo 8170was entered I Ill the name of some one elseand not with regardto the propertyof his father Z HariChandand that copyof mutation as show byhim to the palwari was forged m PWl testifledfurtherthat a civil suit titled JoginderSinghvs Gian Chandwas m pendingin the Court of IearnedCivilJudgeFaridabadregarding the propertyin Z disputewherein the accused Gian Chand and Sukhbirhad producedforged Qe mutationNo 8170 obtainedfrom DeepChand PabNari in order to get undue benetltfromthe Court Statementof PW2was alsorecordedin which he hasstatedthat he was postedin EconomicCrimeCell in the omceof SP Faridabadon 1101996 He has stated that DeepChandeaccusedhad appearedin Crime Cell on 8O996 wherehe madedisclosurestatementEx PW21C Statementof PW3was alsorecordedto the effectthat mutationNo 8170pertaining to villageChhainsawas sanctionedin favourof BabuLaI etc He Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 rle Revn40 375 of 2011 OSMI 4e furtherstatedthat thereis cuttingat SerialNo 8170 There is alsocultingin the mutation Mark A which IS not mentioned in the record Duringcross examinationhe statedthat realmutationNo 8170was sanctionedon 611996 Statementof PW4 was alsorecordedto the effectthat the recovery memoExPW51Cwhereby certifiedcopyofjudgment was takenintopossession The certitledcopyis EXPW518PW5deposed that on 2881996 Distt Inspector had alsocollectedPwari registerand Iistof arrears vide memo ExPW51COn 01 10 1996 he had taken into possessiontwo pagesof registervide memo r 0 As per statementof PW6 retired Inspectorwho provedF1e 0 ExPWRIArecordedby ASI Shri BhagwanHe also provedOnal reportunder I C5 Section173CrJ3Cprepared byhimaftercompletion of I Statementof PW7 TejSinghSain4Asstt Treasurerin SubTreasury Z Oftlce Ballabgarh was also recordedthat on 2381995 theaccusedDeepChand Palwari had depositedRs 14061towardscopyingfee vide From ExPW71A C Anotheramount of Rs61 was also depositedby him on 268 1996vide Ex PW718 Z PW8 Dev Raj retiredAhlmadprovedstatementExPW51G made by m the accusedDeepChandon 08101996 by signaturesof Smt Sunita 7 Goyalthe then learnedJMIC Faridabad Z Evidence producedby the prosecutionwas confrontedto the accusedDeepChand in his statementrecordedunder Section313 CrPC He controvertedthe same and pleadedfalse In defence he tendered copyof orderdated262004 ExDA andclosedthe same After goingthrough evidence the Addl Chief JudicialMagistrate Faridabadheld that chargeunderSection1208 IPC could not be sustainedIn regards to Sectlon420 IPC the necessary were found to be missing The offenceunderSection467was alsonot proved Thereafter accused DeepChand was held guiltyunder Sections Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 408 CrleRevn Noe375 of 2011 COSMI a5 466 and 468 IPC on the goundthat mutationhas beenforgedand cheatedand wasconvictedunderthe abovesaidprovisions Aggrievedby the aforesaidjudgmentof convictionand order of sentencethe appealhas beenOledbythe Chand that he is innocentpersonand has beenconvictedwithoutany fault on the basisof misleading evidence The convictionof the accused was uphledholdingthat mutationregisteris keptbya publicsetvant in his omcial capacityForgingsuch a registershall certainlybringthe offencewithin the purviewof Section466 whichreadsas underl 0 466 Forgeryofrecord of Coun or ofpublicregistereto 0 Whoever forges a documentor an electronicremrd purpotg to I 0 be a remrd or of or in a Courtofjusticeor a registerof I birth baptismmarriage or buria4or a registerkeptby a public Z servantas such or a certicate or documentpurpoIt to be made bya publicservant in his ofcial capadtyor an authority to institute r or defenda suit or to takeany proceedings therein or to confess I judgment or a power of altomey shall be punished wh Z imprisonment of either descnption for a term whichmay extendto n0 seven year andshallalsobe IiabIeto One1 7 The accused had refused to give specimensignaturesand Z by way of makingspeciocStatementbeforeSmt SunitaGoyalHe even confessedthat he had madetheentryof mutationNo 8170at pageNo 3 regarding the Iandof JoginderSinghet with regardto 115 shareof 99 years Ieasein favourof GianChandand Sukhbirand that he had issuedcopy of that mUtatiOntO Gian Chandetc which bears his signaturesHe even admittedto havemadecuttingat Sr No 8170in the mutationregister In view of the abovefacts theappealof the presentpetitioner was dismissed by Additional SessionsJudge Farldabad on 21012011 While dismissing theappealit was observedthat offenceunderSections466 and 468 Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CrleRevneNoe375 of 2011 COSMI e6e of IPCwas punishable up to 7 yearsand sincethe accusedhad been trialsince 1996and he had sincebeenretired trialCourt had alreadytakenthe Iiberal view by sentencingthe to undergorigorous for a periodof one yeareach Counselfor the petitioner arguedthat since the coe accusedof the petitioner havebeenacquitted bythe Court belowand no appeal has beentlledbythe State hence petitioner cannot be convictedas it was Gian Chandand SukhbirSinghwho had usedthe documentin a civil suit beingthe m r benetlciariesThis pleais not availableto the petitioner as he was a public servant and was the mutation registerin his official capacilye 0 0 Therefore hisconvictionunderSections466 and468 is upheld I 9 Reference is beingmade to judgmentof DeIhi HighCourt itl I Punish Jindal vss State and others 2009l51 ReCeRetCriminall 391 Z whereinduringthe criminalprocedings the accusedhad committedforgeryand siphoning awayRs10 Iacs A complaint was registered underSections467 468 471 and420 IPC andpartiesenteredinto andthe were I quashed Z In MehangaSingh VS State of Punjab 2001l21 RaCeR m lCriminall 523 it has been held that accusedwas a publicservantand had S7 preparedforgedcourt attendancecertiOcatesand claimedtravelling allowance Z and he was convictedunderSections468 471 IPC for a periodof seven years Clm but he was releasedon probation In the presentcase the accusedPatwariDeepChand has been convictedfor the offenceunderSection466 IPC videAnnexure Pe1 for a period of one year He hadsuppiiedthe mutationNo 8170enteredbythe petitioner to Gian Chandand SukhbirSinghThis mutationhad been used by GianChandand SukhbirSinghin civilsuit andtheyare the directbeneOciariesof theallegedmutation Accordinglythe criminalrevision IS dismissed The petitionerhas Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9S 410 t Cri Revna Noe375 of 2011 OSMI 7e been facingtrial Since the year 1996 ie for almost 15 yearsand is a retired persorleThere is also no other allegation that he was involvedin any criminal case in his entire service As per custodycertiOcatepetitionerhas undergone 3 months20daysweef 21012011 till date Keepingin vtew that the petitionerdid not derive any financial benefltfrom makingthe said entryand as the coaccused of the petitionerhas alreadybeenacquitteda directionis beinggiventhat petitioner be releasedon probation for a periodof one yearbygivinga securityto the satisfactionof OM Faridabad 0 petition standsdisposed of 0 I C5 1 May 162011 RITU BAHRII I GArora JUDGE Z I 11 9 Q 1 f Z d m m Z 1 Parkash Om 2013.05.17 12: 34 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document