Crl.R. No.1717 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.1717 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: May 4, 2009 PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA, ...PETITIONER THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR VERSUS GURBIR SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. KANWALJIT SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. J.S. LALLI, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. T.S. SANGA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHELLY SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Crl.R.No.1717 of 2002 and Crl.R. No.1718 of 2002, as these revisions arise from a common impugned judgements. However, the facts are being extracted from Crl.R. No.1717 of 2002. The complainant Punjabi University, Patiala has filed this revision impugning the judgement dated 9.5.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which both the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Section 419/120-B IPC. The case against the respondents was registered by the complainant on dated 12.5.1994, Ex.PG lodged by Sh. Baljit Singh Sidhu, Lecturer, Des Bhagat College, Bardwal who was working as Central Crl.R. No.1717 of 2002 -2- Superintendent, Sangrur-4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.5.1994, examination of M.A.II (Punjabi) was to be held and Roll No.55980 was allotted to Gurbir Singh son of Jagdev Singh. Instead of Gurbir Singh appearing for the said paper, the other accused Surinder Singh appeared on his behalf and also signed as Gurbir Singh. Surinder Singh was caught at the spot and the complainant requested to Police to take suitable action against the accused Gurbir Singh as well as Surinder Singh. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered against the accused and they were tried under Section 419/420/120-B IPC. In support of their case the prosecution had examined Paramjit Singh Khewra, Controller Examination, Punjabi University, Patiala as PW1 who deposed that Surinder Singh had impersonated as Gurbir Singh. Jitender Kumar, Superintendent, Construction Branch, Punjabi University, Patiala appeared as PW2 and Baljit Singh Sidhu, Lecturer, Des Bhagat College, Dhuri appeared as PW5 and they also deposed to the same effect. The trial Court vide its judgement dated 17.3.1998, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur convicted both the accused under Section 419/120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. However, in appeal filed by the respondents-accused, they were acquitted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgement dated 9.5.2002, primarily on the ground that handwriting of the accused was not compared with the handwriting on the answer paper and further that the accused was not apprehended from the spot but were caught subsequently. It was also found by the appellate Court that both the accused were found present, at the time of giving of examination, at their places of work and lastly, the question paper which was allegedly attempted by Gurbir Singh was not the same for the date on Crl.R. No.1717 of 2002 -3- which they were apprehended. It is against this judgement of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur that this revision petition has been filed by the respondents. Mr. T.S. Sanga, counsel for the respondent-Gurbir Singh-accused contends that as per sub Section 3 of Section 401 Cr.P.C., the scope of interference in revision against the order of acquittal is limited. He contends that only if the findings are outrightly perverse then this Court would interfere in the findings of acquittal. Learned counsel further submits that the findings of the appellate Court on all the four points enumerated above clearly shows that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is further contended by the Mr. Navkiran Singh, counsel for the respondent-Surinder Singh- accused that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal and therefore, no interference is called for in the order of acquittal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 12.5.1994. The appellate Court had extended the benefit of doubt to both the accused on the grounds as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and no interference is called for by this Court to reverse the findings of the appellate Court in view of the Section 401(1) of Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the revision petitions are dismissed. May 4, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE