IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2026 of 2003 Date of decision: September 17, 2010 Bijender Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.L. Bhatia, Advocate Amicus Curiae with Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J All the three accused were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 379/411 IPC for the theft of cars and receiving stolen cars. Consequently, they were tried, convicted vide judgment dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 411 IPC. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.9.2003 accepted the appeals preferred by Dharambir and Amandeep @ Pappa and acquitted them of the charges framed against them. However, the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner Bijender Singh was dismissed. On 15.7.2000, ASI Kali Ram along with other police employees was present at G.T. Road in front of the bus stand Panipat in connection with the patrolling and checking of the crime. In the meantime, he received secret information that Bijender Singh son of Man Singh was negotiating with workshop mechanics for the sale of maruti cars bearing registration No.HR-19-8877 and DL-7C-3424 and that he was talking with Tejbir son of Hawa Singh resident of village Bhusli for the sale of the maruti car bearing registration No.HR-19-8877 and if the raid is conducted he could be apprehended along with the stolen cars. Believing the said information to be credible, Kali Ram Investigating Officer sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. The Investigating Criminal Revision No.2026 of 2003 -2- Officer then visited the disclosed place; apprehended the accused Bijender Singh who suffered a disclosure statement that a week earlier, Amandeep alias Pappa had brought the stolen car bearing registration No.DL-7C-3424 to him for the purpose of sale which was without registration and he could get it recovered. He also disclosed that he was in possession of another stolen car bearing registration No.HR-19-8877 which he tried to sell away but could not succeed for want of customer and he could get both the cars recovered. Thereafter, he got recovered the aforesaid two stolen cars. The Investigating Officer took both the cars into possession. Similarly, Amandeep @ Pappa was also arrested. During interrogation, he also suffered a disclosure statement admitting therein about the commission of theft of car bearing registration No.DL-7C-3424 and he got recovered the said car. Dharambir son of Tek Ram also admitted having stolen the car bearing registration No.HR-19-8877 from Delhi and handing over the same to Bijender Singh for the purpose of sale. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence; recorded statements of the witnesses and ultimately report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by him. All the accused were charged for the offence under Section 411 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined HC Jai Singh (PW1) who is one of the witnesses of the recovery to the stolen cars. Tejbir Singh (PW2) is an independent witness with whom the accused Bijender Singh proposed to sell the car. SI Dhup Singh (PW3) is a formal witness. C. Rajesh Kumar (PW4) is a witness to the identification memo and SI Kali Ram (PW5) is the Investigating Officer of the case. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial court convicted all the three accused, whereas, the Appellate Court while accepting the appeals filed by Dharambir and Amandeep, acquitted them of the charges framed against them. However, the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner was dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Criminal Revision No.2026 of 2003 -3- Having heard the rival contentions, it is observed that as regards Bijender Singh sufficient evidence has come on record to connect him with the crime. There was secret information against Bijendeer Singh that he was having two stolen cars bearing registration Nos.HR-19-8877 and DL-7C-3424. On raid both the cars were got recovered in pursuance to his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. HC Jai (PW1) is a recovery witness. He has also duly established that the aforesaid two cars were recovered from the possession of the accused. Despite lengthy cross examination conducted upon him nothing such came to the surface which could help the case of the accused. The recovery memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C duly attested by HC Jai Singh (PW1) also prove that the accused was found in possession of the aforesaid two stolen cars. The cars are such a property which cannot be kept into possession without registration, therefore, the accused being in possession of the said cars was bound to establish their ownership, by producing registration certificates thereof, and on failure to explain their possession and ownership, the accused could certainly be said to be in possession of the stolen cars. It is not a case where the prosecution was bound to establish the theft of the articles before the accused could be convicted under Section 411 IPC. But, in the present case, the ownership of the cars could be established by registration certificates issued in connection with those vehicles and if the accused was not in possession of those registration certificates, then in the absence of any explanation as to how he came in possession of the said cars, the offence under Section 411 IPC would certainly be established. The explanation of the accused that the case is false without further explanation as to how he came in possession of the said cars viz. if he was hirer, purchaser, lessor or otherwise trustee of the cars, such explanation would be of no consequence. Thus, both the courts below were certainly right in holding that the accused was found in possession of the stolen cars. While taking the case from another angle, since both the courts below have returned the concurrent finding of the fact that the accused was found in possession of the stolen cars, therefore, interference at this revisional stage could not be made on these findings of fact. The scope of interference at the revisional stage is very limited in nature. It has been observed by the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Criminal Revision No.2026 of 2003 -4- Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. Further, on the issue, it held as under :- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment of the evidence, at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the appellant. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Similarly, while discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under :- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting Criminal Revision No.2026 of 2003 -5- miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. The sentence awarded is also commensurates with the offence committed. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgments. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for compliance. Mr. H.L. Bhatia, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. September 17, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge