Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 Date of Decision: 28.1.2010 Surinder Singh alias S.S. Tomar …Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “Sugarfed”) advertised the post of Assistant Cane Development Officer in Hindustan Times dated 6.5.1991. In response to the advertisement, petitioner applied for the post and submitted handwritten application Ex.PA. In the application, it was stated that petitioner had passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) in second division from the Meerut University in 1984. Along with the application, petitioner submitted Detailed Marks List Ex.P5 issued by the Meerut University. Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that an interview was held and petitioner was selected for the post and appointment letter was issued in his favour. Vide Ex.P8, Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 2 petitioner stated that with reference to appointment letter No. PSF/Recruitment/91/A-III/5630 dated 22.7.1991 received by him on 29.7.1991, he intended to join his duties as Assistant Cane Development Officer, on 5.8.1991. He further stated that terms & conditions mentioned in the appointment letter are acceptable to him. It is submitted that petitioner joined his duties on 5.8.1991. It transpired that later Detailed Marks Sheet, submitted by the petitioner, Ex.P5 was sent for verification to the Meerut University. The University responded that the document submitted by the petitioner was fake. A written complaint Ex.PB was sent by the Sugarfed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, for registration of the case against the petitioner. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, who vide his judgment dated 4.5.1999, found him guilty of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Similar sentence was imposed for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, came to conclusion that no offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is made out, however, conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 420 and Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 3 471 IPC was upheld and sentence awarded on these counts was maintained. Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has raised two following submissions before this Court:- a) That admittedly, the petitioner has submitted Xerox copy of Detailed Marks List and no original thereof was furnished by him, therefore, he could not be convicted for the offence under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. b) That PW.4 D.K. Goel, Senior Assistant, Accounts Department, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, in examination- in-chief, has stated that he had verified the record and as per the record, the certificate showing petitioner having appeared for the roll number and obtained Degree was fake. But in cross- examination, this witness has not been able to state that he came to this conclusion after verifying which record. Counsel has laid much emphasis on the following lines of cross-examination:- “I had verified the record of the documents which had been brought by the Inspector. I do not know which document Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 4 had been brought by the Inspector”. I am not inclined to accept these two submissions. As a matter of fact, petitioner made misrepresentation and on the basis of that he obtained the appointment. Later when it came to light that petitioner has not possessed of requisite education, he failed to place on record any document which could show that he had passed the examination of B.Sc. (Agriculture) from any University. The trial Court has made a detailed discussion in para 18 and it arrived at a finding which is just and appropriate on appreciation of the evidence. The fact that the petitioner had submitted a photocopy of the Detailed Marks List and no original was produced, was considered by the lower Appellate Court and the benefit has been granted to the petitioner when it came to conclusion that offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not established. Except the two arguments raised above, counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgments of two Courts below. I have also examined the evidence with the able assistance of Mr. Punchhi. No misreading of the evidence is discernible. Thus, this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Punchhi has submitted that the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.3.1999. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., age recorded of the petitioner was 39 years. Furthermore, petitioner was heard when quantum of sentence was to be determined and his statement was recorded on 4.5.1999. Petitioner had stated at that time that he is Criminal Revision No. 934 of 2000 5 married; having three minor children and is a sole bread earner of the family. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has resigned from his job on 24.9.1993 and now he is employed in a private concern. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has undergone about two months and in case he is sent behind the bars, the family of petitioner will be ruined. This Court is conscious of the fact that in the present case, FIR was registered in the year 1994. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 16 years. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, age and long pendency of the trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from two years to nine months rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Sections 420 sand 471 IPC. However, sentence of fine and default clause is maintained. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 28, 2010 “DK”