Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 Date of decision:- 20.12.2010 Wazir Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, DAG Haryana. A.N.JINDAL J. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 14.2.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Initially, the petitioner alongwith Sat Parkash and Mool Chand were tried, however, the trial Court had acquitted Sat Parkash and Mool Chand. The accused-petitioner was facing three criminal cases titled Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 -2- as 'State Versus Wazir etc.' arising out of FIR No.586 dated 01.9.1981, Police Station City, Rohtak under Section 420 IPC. The accused approached Baldev Raj Ahlmad of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak to enquire about the dates in the cases but he told him to enquire about the same from the Reader but the accused had scornfully commented “Tu Mat Bata. Usme Kaun se kagaz rh rahen se, bari to ho jana hai” (You may not tell, no paper is left in the cases and he is bound to be acquitted). On hearing these words, the suspicion aroses in the mind of Baldev Raj Ahlmad. He after tracing the files, found that some documents were missing, whereupon, he vide his report Ex.PW4/A dated 04.7.1986 informed the Presiding Officer of the Court about the action of the accused and missing of the documents, on the basis of which FIR No. 333 of 1986 was registered. The accused was apprehended and pursuant to the statement Ex.PW2/A made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he disclosed that he had kept concealed the documents in the almirah of a room in his house and he could get the same recovered then in pursuance of the said statement he had got recovered 96 documents (Ex. P-1 to Ex.P-96) being receipts, application for exemption, application of jama talasi, application for superdari and certificate of incorporation recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW2/B. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused and two other persons. The accused and two other persons charged for the offence under Sections 380/201 IPC. They denied the same and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined six witnesses in all. Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 -3- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Though Om Parkash (PW3) is a witness to the extra judicial confession. He has stated that around eight years ago, two persons had come and stated to him that they had stolen certain documents from a case file, which was in the custody of the Court, and the police had come to know about this fact, therefore, they were to deliver the documents to the police. Consequently, he produced Wazir and Mool Singh before the police. No doubt Om Parkash was declared hostile as he could not depose certain facts on account of loss of memory due to passage of time. Yet his evidence cannot be ignored qua certain aspects of the case. He has named the accused Wazir Chand before the Court. Secondly he has categorically stated that Wazir Chand alongwith one more person had come to him and confessed about their involvement in the present case. Though, no reliance placed upon his solitary testimony yet his testimony if finds corroboration by other evidence, it certainly could lead to point towards the guilt of the accused. In order to substantiate the charge Baldev Raj Ahlmad has specifically stated that on 4th of July 1986 accused Wazir Chand came to him to enquire about the dates in three cases titled as State Vs. Wazir Chand etc. but he referred him to the Reader and he, however, prompted that there was no such document to indict him in the case, therefore, he was bound to be acquitted, which invited suspicion in his mind. Then on search of the files, he came to know that the documents from the file were missing. His testimony stands corroborated by Jogi Ram, Civil Ahlmad Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 -4- (PW1), who has also corroborated the prosecution version stating that on the day of occurrence Wazir Chand alongwith one more person had come to Baldev Raj and asked for informing him about the dates in the cases. No doubt, this witness was also declared hostile, yet the factum that accused Wazir Chand had come to enquire about the dates in the cases stands fully established. Besides the aforesaid evidence, there is recovery of all 96 documents from the possession of the accused pursuant to his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which is also sufficient to prove that the accused had stolen the documents from the custody of the Court. PW5 Pirthi Singh is a witness, who proved the disclosure statement Ex.PW2/A. He has categorically stated that Wazir Chand suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW2/A in his presence and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the documents Ex.P-5 to P-96, application dated 30.11.1983 for exemption from appearance (Ex.P-2), an application dated 06.11.1982 pertaining to jama talasi (Ex.P1), an application for superdari for releasing the record relating to Haryana Safe Deposit India Ltd. (Ex.P- 3) and Certificate of incorporation (Ex.P4) were recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery Memo Ex.PW2/B. The testimony of Pirthi Singh stands further corroborated by PW2 ASI Ishwar Singh. Notwithstanding the fact that Investigating Officer could not be examined as he had died by that time. In the circumstances, non- examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The investigation stands duly proved from the statement of official witnesses. All the material evidence as collected during the investigation stands proved by leading other evidence including the statement of the accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act Ex.PW2/A, Criminal Revision No.418 of 2003 -5- the recovery memo Ex.PW2/B pertaining to the documents so recovered from the accused, therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer in the present case does not cause any prejudice to the accused. No other argument has been advanced. Keeping in view the past conduct of the accused that he was involved in three other criminal cases and he had tried to steal documents from the court custody, no leniency on the quantum of sentence could be extended to him. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. December 20, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE