Crl. Rev. No.3374 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3374 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.12.2010 Leelu Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 04.09.2008 and 08.09.2008, respectively, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, vide which, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 419 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for a period of three years under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani. The same was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010. However, the sentence awarded under Section 420 read with Crl. Rev. No.3374 of 2010 2 Section 511 of the IPC was modified and, accordingly, reduced to one year. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2008 and 08.09.2008, respectively passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, as well as, order dated 19.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani. While challenging the order convicting the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigating agency has failed to examine any expert witness to prove that the signatures of Pankaj Taneja on application Ex.PA were endorsed by the petitioner or not. Further, no superdari order has been passed by the Magistrate on the application Ex.P-1. It is further stated that there is no documentary evidence that the petitioner impersonated himself as Pankaj Taneja. There has been no gain or loss to anyone. Further, the superdari order was in the name of registered owner and there was no occasion for the petitioner to allege himself as Pankaj Taneja. Heard. This is a revision petition. The powers of Revisional Court are limited. Even on merits, the accused Leelu Ram appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 20.06.1998. He identified himself as Pankaj Taneja, the registered owner of the motor-cycle. He identified himself as Pankaj Taneja in order to obtain supardari of the said motor-cycle. The Magistrate enquired and accused-petitioner disclosed his real identity. It is evident that the allegations against the present petitioner are that he identified himself as Pankaj Taneja before the Magistrate and not that he has forged the signatures of Pankaj Taneja. Thus, the question of examining the handwriting expert to find out as to whether the signatures were of Pankaj Taneja or the present petitioner, does not arise. Here the concerned Magistrate examined himself as PW-1. He testified that the present petitioner, who was facing trial, had identified himself as Crl. Rev. No.3374 of 2010 3 Pankaj Taneja. He disclosed his real identity when he was questioned. The statement of accused was accordingly recorded by the Magistrate. PW-1, who was examined, admitted that he recorded the statement vide which the petitioner has admitted his guilt. PW-3 Sudhir Kumar, Reader admitted that the petitioner had impersonated himself as Pankaj Taneja. There is no reason for any of the witnesses to state anything but the truth. Thus, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the IPC. The trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a period of three years under Section 419 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for a period of three years under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani had already taken a lenient view and reduced the sentence to that of one year. From the facts and evidence as evident from the judgments of two Courts below, the offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the IPC is duly attracted and the petitioner is rightly convicted under the said offence. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment dated 04.09.2008 and 08.09.2008, respectively passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, as well as, order dated 19.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani is made out. The present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 20.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet