IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 Date of Decision: 05.03.2009 Ajit Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Virk, Addl.A. G. Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) It was an allegation against the petitioner that he by using fabricated matriculation certificate, showing wrong date of birth, got entry in service with the respondent State in the year 1975. Fraud was detected by the authorities in the year 1993. Thereafter, an FIR against him was registered for commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, 471 IPC on 5.4.1995. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 1.12.1998, held him guilty and inflicted upon him following punishments:- “i) Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 2 pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. for three months. ii) Under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for six months. iii) Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. for three months. iv) Under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine accused is further sentenced to R.I. for three months. He went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2002. Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court, in judgment, under challenge, in paragraph No.2 reads thus:- “As per story of prosecution case, after receiving complaint in writing from Gurpal Singh by Vigilance Bureau FIR in question was registered against appellant on allegations that he has forged entry regarding date of birth in his Matriculation Certificate issued by Punjab University as 10.6.1945 mentioned therein in lieu of 10.6.1940, which is actual date of Birth. Matriculation examination passed by appellant in 1958. Application form for getting admission in 9th Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 3 Class was filled by appellant on 30.5.1956 while getting admission in Government School Sarawan Bodla. In that application form appellate disclosed his date of birth as 10.6.1940 and it was in pursuance of that that in Matriculation Certificate also date of birth of appellant was to be mentioned as 10.6.1940. Appellant got admission in First year in Government College, Muktsar on 4.6.1958 and while filling his admission form he mentioned his date of birth as 10.6.1940. However, while getting service in Food and Civil Supplies Department on 31.7.1975 appellant furnished Matriculation Certificate with date of birth as 10.6.1945 instead of 10.6.1940. Even in the Gazette of result of Matriculation of appellant as prepared by Punjab University, Chandigarh, date of birth of appellant mentioned as 10.6.1940. In this way appellant did cutting in Matriculation Certificate for describing his date of birth as 10.6.1945 instead of 10.6.1940 so that benefit of five years of more service may be got by appellant. After completion of investigation, challan against appellant presented.” On above said allegations, FIR (Ex.PW6/8) was recorded against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. He was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 4 material existing on record was put to him which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence as led by both the parties found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. Appeal filed by him was partly allowed by the appellate Court below vide judgment dated 26.2.2002, whereby conviction and sentence awarded for commission of offences under Sections 467/468 IPC was set aside. However, he was sentenced under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. He was also sentenced under Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. Mr.Chhabra, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting and awarding sentence to the petitioner. By referring to some minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, he made an attempt to assail the judgments under challenge, on merits. He also made an effort to rely upon certificate issued by the Municipal Council, Moga (Ex.D1), showing date of birth of the petitioner as 10.6.1945. He prayed that revision petition be allowed, judgments, under challenge, be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Mr.A.S.Virk, Addl.A.G. Punjab, who by taking this Court through the statements, made by the prosecution witnesses, argued that the Courts below were justified in Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 5 convicting and awarding sentence to the petitioner. He further stated that when the petitioner got admission in a College, as per Panjab University’s record, he has shown his date of birth as 10.6.1940. It was so said by Des Raj (PW6), Inspector Vigilance. However, to get benefit in service, fabricated matriculation certificate was produced showing date of birth as 10.6.1945. He prayed that revision petition, having no substance, be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. There exists ample documentary evidence on record, to show that actual date of birth of the petitioner was 10.6.1940. It was so entered in the Panjab University’s record. The prosecution has brought on record various documents to show that when getting entry in service in the year 1975, the petitioner fabricated his date of birth and showed it as 10.6.1945 instead of 10.6.1940. Lengthy cross- examination of the witnesses has failed to shatter their credibility. In the face of documentary evidence on record, counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court regarding innocence of the petitioner. Faced with the situation, Mr.Chhabra has vehemently argued that as on today, the petitioner is more than 65 years of age. After passing of the judgments under challenge, he was also thrown out of service. He has grown up family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, his entire family will suffer. He further submitted that the petitioner has suffered agony of trial, which is pending since 1995 and he has suffered financially as well. Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that after his conviction, the petitioner has undergone for about three months of actual sentence. He Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 6 prayed that leniency be shown to the petitioner and his sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by him. Mr.Virk has opposed the prayer made. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an erring individual but is also to give an opportunity to him to reform himself. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 7 be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Stae of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467. It is not in dispute that FIR was recorded in the year 1995 i.e. more than 13 years ago. In consequence to his conviction in this case, the petitioner was thrown out of service. He is 65 years of age. Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 8 Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, this revision petition is partly allowed, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him under Sections 420 IPC read with 511 IPC and 471 read with 465 IPC, is reduced to the already undergone by him. Taking note of the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, sentence of fine imposed upon him is maintained and enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. He is directed to deposit that amount with the trial Court within a period of three months from today after adjusting any amount earlier paid by him, failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The amount so deposited be forfeited to the respondent State government. 05.03.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge