Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1120 OF 1999. DATE OF DECISION : 14-12-2009. Jaswant Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S.Rakar, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amneet Bassi, Advocate and Mr. Hemant Bassi, Standing Counsel, U.T. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.08.1999 rendered by the court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 17.4.1998 and order of sentence dated 18.4.1998 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, vide which it convicted the present revision-petitioner for offences under Sections 420/471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and however, the sentence of Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -2- imprisonment for offence under Section 471 IPC was reduced from 3 years R.I. to 2 years R.I. while maintaining the other sentences including the sentence of fine imposed by learned Trial Court. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by Charan Pal Singh, Director, Police Tele-Communication, Punjab, Chandigarh (PW4) in his complaint, Ex.PW/A, runs as under. 3. Recruitment of Constables/Operators/Messangers was done in the office of Director, Police Tele-Communication, Punjab, Chandigarh in December, 1984. After completion of all the necessary formalities, the selected candidates were called to join duties on 27.06.1985. All the selected candidates were directed to submit their original matriculation certificates and detailed mark sheets in the office. All the candidates submitted their original matriculation certificates and detailed mark sheets in the office of complainant – Charan Pal Singh, Director, Police Tele-Communication, Punjab, Chandigarh. The authenticity of the certificates was to be vertified as per the instructions hence, the certificates submitted by the selected candidates were sent to the concerned Board i.e. Punjab School Education Board, Mohali for verification. The Secretary of Punjab School Education Board, Mohali vide letter dated 08.11.1985 informed that original matriculation certificate and detailed mark card of Constable Messenger Jaswant Singh son of Anokh Singh, was found to be bogus. Hence, after receipt of the said report, Jaswant singh was discharged from the service on 09.11.1985. 4. After registration of First Information Report, investigation Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -3- was taken in hand and the necessary documents including the forged certificates were taken into possession. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed for trial of accused for offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. Accused was charged accordingly by learned Trial Court to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. PW1 is Moti Ram, Sub Inspector, who had taken into possession various documents. PW2 is Manohar Lal, Superintendent from the office of Punjab School Education Board, Mohali who deposed that certificates Ex.P1 and P2 were found to be bogus and that the roll number 441867 against which the said certificates were allegedly issued, was never issued to Jaswant Singh. PW3 is Didar Singh, ASI from the office of Director, Police Tele-Communication, Punjab, Chandigarh, who had produced the relevant record before the Investigating Officer of this Court. PW4 is complainant – Charan Pal Singh, who has proved his complaint Ex.PW/A. He clarified that he knew the candidate personally through the process of recruitment. PW5 is Jaspal Singh, in whose presence accused was arrested on 14.10.1993. PW6 is Seetal Singh, Head Constable, a formal witness. PW7 is Dalip Rattan, Sub Inspector, who had obtained the specimen signature of the accused. PW8 is Tara Singh Hundal, Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, who deposed that the certificates Ex.P1 and P2 are forged one and the same were never issued by the Board. 6. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 of Cr.P.C was Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -4- recorded in which he denied the version of the prosecution witnesses and claimed to be innocent. He took the plea that he had never applied nor submitted the application for recruitment as Messenger Wireless and that rather he used to work as domestic help and looking after the house of a senior officer staying in BSF complex at Jalandhar. He has also denied having passed matriculation and further denied having prepared forged certificate. He also took the specific plea that application form was never written by him and the same was never filled by him. 7. In his defence, he examined Document Expert Ms. Jassy Ahluwalia as DW1 and then appeared himself as DW2. 8. Learned Trial Court convicted the present revision- petitioner for offences under Sections 420/471 IPC and sentenced him for the said offences. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court before the court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who dismissed the same except for modification in the order of sentence and hence, present revision petition. 9. I have heard Mr. M.S.Rakar, learned senior counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. Hemant Bassi, Standing Counsel, U.T. and have gone through the whole record. 10. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -5- convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 11. It has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the revision-petitioner that in this case prosecution has failed to prove that the present revision-petitioner has forged the certificates Ex.P1 and P2 and that hence, he was also acquitted by the courts below for offence under Section 468 IPC. It is further contended that in view of the fact that forgery has not been proved, case for offence under Section 420 IPC would also fail and on this point he has also placed reliance upon 1997 (1) RCR(Crl.) 127, Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh. 12. However, there is no force in the said plea of the learned senior counsel for the revision-petitioner as Guru Bipin's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the allegation in the complaint was that by forging the book, deception was caused and the members of the public were induced to purchase the same and that hence, it was held that forgery was the principal allegation and cheating being a consequential offence. However, in the present case prosecution has been able to prove that certificates Ex.P1 and P2, which were produced by the accused and on the basis of which he was allowed to join duty as Messenger Wireless, were found to be forged. It was proved that the accused used the said documents intentionally having reason to believe the same to be forged, to secure employment as Messenger Constable and actually joined on the said post on the basis of those documents and Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -6- however, he was discharged when the documents were found to be forged. 13. It has further been argued by the learned senior counsel for the revision-petitioner that he never applied for the post and that he never submitted certificates Ex.P1 and P2 for securing job as Constable. However, the plea cannot be accepted. The fact that he secured job as Messenger Constable on the basis of those documents, has been duly proved by PW3 – Didar Singh, ASI and complainant – Charan Pal Singh, PW4. It has also been rightly observed by the courts below that there is only short cross-examination of these witnesses and that they were not cross-examined on the material points. The accused was identified by both these witnesses. PW4, Charan Pal Singh, Director, Police Tele-Communication, Punjab, Chandigarh clarified in the cross- examination that he knew the candidate personally through the process of recruitment. 14. Both the courts below have found the evidence of prosecution convincing and reliable and the offence has been proved by oral as well as documentary evidence i.e. official record duly discussed in both the judgments. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgments of conviction passed by learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. 15. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the revision-petitioner that he has been facing agony of trial since the year 1985 i.e. for the last about 24 years and hence, it is argued that he should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be Crl. Revision No.1120 of 1999 -7- reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The present revision-petitioner has already lost his job as he was discharged after it was found that the certificates submitted by him are not genuine. He has been facing agony of trial for the last 24 years, hence, he deserves some leniency so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC is reduced to six months R.I. and the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 471 IPC is also reduced to six months R.I. while maintaining the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default in making the payment of fine as imposed by learned Trial Court for both the offences. However, the substantive sentences for both the offences shall run concurrently. Imprisonment already undergone by the accused during investigation, trial and during pendency of appeal/revision after conviction, shall be set off as provided under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. With this modification in the quantum of sentence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 18. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provision of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 14, 2009. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No