IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2664 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 Gurpinder Singh @ Guri ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 468 IPC and one year RI under Section 471 IPC coupled with some fine. The Appellate Court has upheld the conviction and accordingly the petitioner has filed the present revision petition to impugn the conviction and sentence awarded to him. The story of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have forged the signatures of ASI Vijay Kumar and used the same as genuine giving a clearance certificate for his mother, his sister and for himself. The matter was reported by the Canadian High Commission at New Delhi through a letter and on that basis the case was registered. In the clearance certificate, it was mentioned that there is no case pending against the petitioner and his family. However, this was found to be contrary to the actual record and the petitioner was Criminal Revision No.2664 of 2011 (O&M) :2: statedly involved in some criminal case, which was pending against him. Investigation revealed that ASI Vijay Kumar had denied endorsing his signatures on the clearance certificate. The prosecution proved the signatures on the disputed certificate to be forged one by obtaining the signatures of ASI Vijay Kumar before the Court. The said signatures alongwith disputed signatures on the certificate were sent for examination by an expert. The report showed that the admitted signatures did not tally with the disputed signatures of ASI Vijay Kumar appearing on the clearance certificate. On this basis, the petitioner was found guilty of committing forgery. The sole submission made by the counsel is that the forgery cannot be presumed in a criminal case. As per the counsel, there is no evidence led to show that the forgery was committed by the petitioner. The submission further is that efforts have been made to save ASI Vijay Kumar, who had given this clearance certificate without justification and proper verification. Be that as it may, the ultimate beneficiary is the petitioner and his family. The certificate admittedly was submitted by the petitioner himself. Obviously, Vijay Kumar would not, on his own, have given any false or fictitious certificate. Even if it is assumed that Vijay Kumar had done so to favour the petitioner, it would have been on the asking of the petitioner and he was, thus, fully aware of the forgery that was committed. In any case, this fact was in the special knowledge of the petitioner and it was for him to prove who had been responsible for signatures on this certificate, if it was ASI Vijay Kumar. The petitioner at the time of submission of certificate would also be aware that the case is pending against him and still had submitted this certificate. In any case, he has, thus, connived in the forgery, which was committed and detected by the Commission. In this view of the matter, no case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE