Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 06, 2010 Jit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. \ A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioner Jit Singh (herein referred as `petitioner') through the instant petition has questioned the legality of the judgment dated 12.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 5.7.2001 passed by Trial Court, convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 420 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- U/s 465 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- U/s 471 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- In brief, the facts are that the petitioner succeeded to get his enlistment as Constable in the 75th Bt. Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt, by showing his date of birth as 10.5.1969. On verification by the Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [2] Commandant of the Battalion regarding his age and qualification from the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, it revealed that his date of birth was 10.5.1961 and not 10.5.1969. After enquiry, the present case was got registered against the petitioner and during investigation, original matriculation certificate, copy of gazette notification regarding matriculation result, standing order No.4 for the recruitment of the constables, order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and verification from the Government Primary School, Khadoor Sahib, exhibits PB, PA, PW8/A, PW5/A and PW9/A, respectively were taken into possession. After completion of the necessary formalities, challan against the petitioner was presented before the Court. The Trial Court charged the petitioner under Sections 465, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined Varinder Madan (PW1), Head Constable Jagtar Singh (PW2), Tarsem Singh (PW3), Head Constable Nirmal Singh (PW4), Assistant Sub Inspector Surinder Pal (PW5), Nirmal Singh (PW6), Head Constable Manohar Singh (PW7), Amrik Singh (PW8), Assistant Sub Inspector Jaspal Singh (PW9), Jit Kaur (PW10), Inspector Joginder Singh (PW11), Surinder Kumar (PW12) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Amarjit Singh (PW13). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. Ultimately, he was convicted. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [3] The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the authenticity and credibility of the certificate Ex.PB and the standing order Ex.PW8/A. The certificate Ex.PB has shown that the petitioner was admitted in primary school on 3.4.1968 and passed his 5th class on 31.3.1977. It is argued that it is unbelievable that a student will take ten years in passing the 5th standard and regarding the standing orders Ex.PW8/A, he has contended that it is merely a photocopy. The argument is devoid of any merit. It depends upon person to person regarding his individual capability, caliber and Intelligence Quotient level to pass the classes. Some students are apparently outstanding and pass this class in younger age, but some in older age, therefore, the passing of class cannot be a criteria to assess the age of a student. The document Ex.PW9/A establishes that the petitioner was admitted in school on 3.4.1968 and if his date of birth is 10.5.1969, then, how could it be possible for him to get admission in April, 1968. So far as the photocopy of the standing order (Ex.PW8/A) is concerned, the same has been duly proved by Amrik Singh (PW8), who proved that the document is the attested copy of the original, issued by the Director General of Police on 2.12.1985. Thus, the evidentiary value of the standing order also cannot be doubted. The case is based on the documentary evidence, which stands duly corroborated by the oral evidence. Starting from the initial stage of the case, when the petitioner applied for selection in the Police force, Ex.PW8/A is the standing order, which prescribes the minimum qualification for becoming eligible for the post of Constable i.e. Matriculation or Higher Secondary Part-I with Punjabi as one of the elective subject and the upper age limit is 22 years. Jit Kaur (PW10), the Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [4] Head Mistress of the Government Primary School, Khadoor Sahib, Amritsar while appearing in the witness box has proved the document Ex.PW9/A, according to which the petitioner took admission vide Admission No.595 on 3.4.1968; passed his primary examination on 31.7.1977, and his date of birth as 10.5.1961. Further comes the document Ex.PA, which is the gazette notification showing the petitioner (Jit Singh son of Massa Singh) having passed matriculation examination by securing 552 marks under Roll No.10754 and his date of birth as 10.5.1961. This date of birth has been further verified vide report Ex.PC by the Secretary of the Punjab School Education Board. The record further reveals that matriculation certificate has been tampered with and the year of date of birth was converted from '1961' to '1969', both in words and figures. The petitioner, certainly being the beneficiary of the certificate is responsible for the said forgery, with the help of which he made himself eligible for the post of Constable in Punjab Police. Had he disclosed his real date of birth i.e. 10.5.1961, then he could not be inducted as Constable having attained the age of thirty years as the maximum age limit for the post was twenty-two years. Thus, the conclusion drawn by both the courts below appears to be quite right and do not suggest for any interference. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very restricted in nature. In case State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [5] error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. Once again, in 1999, in case State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting 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 unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Similar observations were made in case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the order of the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded by the lower court. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought some leniency in the quantum of sentence keeping in view the young age of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner committed the crime having been frustrated on account of unemployment. The occurrence in question took place in the year 1996. The petitioner, who was aged about 35 years at that time, has suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last more than fourteen years. That apart, no bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on Criminal Revision No.47 of 2003(O&M) [6] record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. The aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances could be treated as mitigating for reduction of sentence. As such, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to one year under Section 420 IPC, without altering the other sentences. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for compliance. September 06, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE