Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) Decided on : October 11, 2010 Ram Chander and another ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioners Ram Chander and Paras Ram (herein referred as `petitioners') through the instant petition have challenged the judgment dated 20.08.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat convicting and sentencing both the petitioners as under:- U/s 409 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, each; Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) [2] U/s 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, each; U/s 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, each; However, the other accused, namely; Mahender and Daya Nand were acquitted by the Appellate Court. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that all the four accused, as referred to above, passed resolution dated 15.6.1988 to withdraw Rs.1000/- from the Panchayat funds and initiate action to get Maha Singh evicted from the panchayat land, which amount was withdrawn from the Sonepat Central Co-operative Bank vide cheque No.30584 on 24.6.1988, but they instead of initiating action against said Maha Singh embezzled the amount. The accused Ram Chander, Daya Nand and Mahender Singh were Sarpanch and Members Panchayat, respectively whereas, fourth accused, namely Paras Ram was Gram Sachiv at the relevant time. Though, coram of four Panchayat Members is required to pass such resolution, but the aforesaid three Members held the meeting and forged the thumb impression of Shri Kali Ram, as fourth Member Panchayat, who was actually not present in the meeting when the resolution was passed. Kali Ram submitted an affidavit in this regard before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. Since the money was withdrawn from the bank on the advice of Paras Ram, Gram Sachiv, therefore, he was also made an accused. On the aforesaid facts, the First Information Report was registered, investigated and consequently on submission of a report under Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) [3] Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its version, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. However, they lead no evidence in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. However, the appeal preferred by the accused Mahender and Daya Nand was accepted and they were acquitted, but that of accused – petitioners Ram Chander and Paras Ram was dismissed. However, accused Paras Ram was acquitted of the offence under Section 409 IPC, by the Appellate Court. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners without assailing the findings of guilt, has completely thrown themselves to the mercy of the Court and has pleaded for some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Moreover, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the evidence so meticulously at the revisional stage as the interference at the revisional stage could be made very sparingly and in cases where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trial misconducted the proceedings. The Apex Court while discussing the scope of revision in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Nath Jathavedan Namboodiri , AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under:- Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) [4] “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 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.” Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 61 (SC) 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. Once again, this view was taken in case State of Criminal Revision No.1323 of 2001(O&M) [5] Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 555. The crux of the discussion is that the re-appreciation of the evidence at revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. This court finds no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgments, which self-speak about the guilt of the petitioners. Hence, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below deserve to be upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the incident in question took place way back in the year 1988; they have also undergone some part of the substantive sentence and also have suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings pending for the last about twenty-two years. The aforesaid facts and circumstances could be treated as mitigating for reduction of sentence. As such, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to three months under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC, on each count, without any interference in the sentences of fine. Ordered accordingly. With the above modification, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for compliance. October 11, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE