Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.05.2010 Inderjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondent Crl. Rev. No.3139 of 2009 Ram Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No.3139 of 2009 Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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 Order shall dispose of Crl. Revision No.3333 of 2009 filed by accused-Inderjit Singh and Crl. Revision No.3139 of 2009 filed by Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 2 accused-Ram Lal as they are arising out of the common judgment. This is a revision petition against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri, vide which, the both the petitioners were convicted under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and were sentenced as under :- Sr. No. Offence under Section Sentence 1 120-B IPC To undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. 2 420 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. 3 465 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. 4 467 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. 5 468 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. 6 471 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months, each. Thereafter the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri was filed. The Appellate Court, however, vide Order dated 16.11.2009, held that both the accused cannot be convicted for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC and convicted Inderjit Singh and Ram Lal, accused for an offence of forgery under Section 464 IPC and for having forged a valuable security under Section 467 IPC and accused Inderjit Singh was convicted under Section 471 IPC, as well. The judgment Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 3 and conviction passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC was set aside in respect of both the accused and under Section 471 IPC was also set aside in respect of Ram Lal. The prosecution story as recorded by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur is that the respondent (hereinafter the complainant) Mann Singh brought a complaint against the accused having alleged that accused Inderjit Singh is a distant relative of the complainant. He is middle standard pass. Accused Ram Lal runs a shop of the grocery in Village Kuthala, Tehsil Dhuri and both the accused are close friends. They used to entrap the innocent persons so as to exploit them on economic grounds. Accused Inderjit Singh had the money dealings with the complainant in the year 1996. The complainant had cleared the liability, but accused Inderjit Singh had brought civil suit No.188 of 21.07.2000 against complainant Mann Singh before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Dhuri on the basis of the alleged pronotes and receipts dated 01.11.1998. The complainant had not borrowed any amount on 01.11.1998 on the basis of the promotes or otherwise from accused Inderjit Singh. At the relevant time, the complainant had met with an accident. He was unable to walk at least for a period of one year and an iron rod had been planted in his right leg. Accused Inderjit Singh started sending message to the complainant so as to repay the amount without costs. Thereafter, he sent the message that he could make the payment of the half of the amount, but the complainant requested the accused not to exploit him. On perusal of the pronotes and the receipts, the same were found to have been fabricated and were being misused by the accused having made additions and alterations. Accordingly, the complainant brought the complaint against the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Ram Lal submitted Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 4 that the categorical stand of the petitioner during the course of trial was that he had only scribed the pronote and receipt dated 01.11.1996 and not 01.11.1998 and he had been falsely implicated by respondent No.2- complainant for ulterior motive. Secondly, he has derived no benefit whatsoever from the deal and is not a beneficiary but has been wrongly convicted by the Courts below as he has no role to play. The Courts below have relied on the report of the handwriting expert namely Navdeep Gupta but the opinion of the said expert cannot be relied upon. It was further alleged that since the accused-petitioners have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, the remaining offences under Sections 465, 467 and 120-B cannot be said to be made out against them. Thirdly, it was contended that while passing the judgments, the Courts below relied upon the judgment Ex.C-8 passed by the Civil Court against the petitioner on the ground that Mann Singh had examined handwriting and finger prints expert Atul K. Singla, in favour of his case, but no evidence has come on the record that petitioner altered the dates in pronotes and receipts in conspiracy with Ram Lal. Lastly, it was stated that reliance of the Courts below on the Civil Court judgment for convicting the present petitioner was not correct as the law is clear that the finding of the Civil Court is not binding on the Criminal Court. It was further contended that once the accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC, the conviction under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC cannot be sustained and automatically not made out against the accused- petitioners. Leaned counsel for the parties are heard. The findings have been duly recorded that Inderjit Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,81,500/- against Mann Singh-complainant in the present case. In that suit Ram Lal-accused had appeared as witness Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 5 and testified that pronotes and receipts were scribed by him at the instructions of Mann Singh. He also conceded that the dates were altered in the pronotes and receipts. Inderjit Singh-accused also appeared as witness in the said Suit and did not deny in his cross-examination that the dates in the pronotes and receipts were changed. The said Suit was dismissed. The order dismissing the suit has not been challenged. No appeal is filed. Hence, the findings cannot be ignored. Even otherwise, the Court has limited jurisdiction in revision. There is no doubt that the dates were indeed changed from 01.11.1996 to 01.11.1998. Thus, accused Inderjit Singh and Ram Lal altered and changed the dates in the pronotes in conspiracy with each other. The Appellate Court, vide Order dated 16.11.2009, in paras 22 and 23 recorded thus :- “22. There being positive evidence led by the complainant having examined Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert Navdeep Gupta CW-3 with regard to the tampering with the date 1.11.1996 in the pronotes and the receipts so as to make the same as 01.11.1998 and accused Ram Lal while having appeared as a witness in support of the case of Inderjit Singh as PW-1 stated that the pronotes and the receipts were scribed on 01.11.1998, it would mean that accused Ram Lal was a privy to the conspiracy made by accused Inderjit Singh in the matter of tampering with the dates of the pronotes and the receipts. 23. I do not find any reason to agree with the observations made by DW-1 V.B. Bhatnagar, Handwriting and Finger Printers Expert in his record Ex.D1 that the over writing appearing on the date, month and of the digit `9' of 1998 is the natural and that where there is any mistake, the same is corrected by over writing. The over writing on the digits `1' of the date and `11' of the month again has been done with a view to make out a circumstances that the over writing has been done with a view to sharpen the digits. As a matter of Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 6 fact, there was no need for having sharpened the digit `1' and `11' of the date and month. Consequently, I do not find any reason to accept the record Ex.D1 as got proved by DW-1 V.B. Bhatnagar, Handwriting and Finger Printers Expert.” The argument that since the accused have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC, the other offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC cannot be said to be made out, does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case, in as much as, the accused-petitioners could not succeed in causing a wrongful loss to the complainant, in view of their action having been pre-empted by the decree passed by the Civil Court. The suit for recovery on the basis of these promotes was dismissed by the Civil Court. Thus, the accused-petitioners although did forge a valuable security, the same could not be used by them. Thus, just because the documents could not be used, not because they did not wish to use the same for fraudulent purpose but because they were restrained from doing so on account of a civil decree does not abslove them of the offence that the forged documents were indeed prepred. Thus, it cannot be said that the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC in the above facts are not made out. However, taking into account that the accused-petitioners are not the previous convicts and the accused-Inderjit Singh has three young children and is the only bread winner of the family, as also taking into account that the accused-Ram Lal is an old man of more than 65 years of age and is also stated to be the only bread winner of the family and are facing trial since 2003, the sentence shall stand reduced to one year under Section 467 IPC, six months under Section 468 IPC and also six months under Section 471 IPC qua Inderjit Singh. The sentence qua Ram Lal shall stand reduced to one year under Section 467 IPC and six months under Crl. Rev. No.3333 of 2009 7 Section 468 IPC and accordingly, one year under Section 120-B IPC but the sentence, in default, shall remain same. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed except for the modification of the sentence, as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 20.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet