CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mohd.Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated 24 revision petitions, arising out of the similar transactions between the parties, vide this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRR No.90 of 2005. 2. The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-convict Gurmeet Singh was posted as House Tax Clerk in the office of Municipal Committee, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. He collected the huge amount of house tax from the owners of the properties, but issued them fabricated and forged receipts and very meagre amount was reflected in carbon copies. The prosecution claimed that he mis-appropriated the amount of house tax in the following manner:- Dated Name of tax payer Amount collected by Amount reflected in the accused. the carbon copy and deposited with M.C. Malerkotla._______ Challan No.14 Kishan Singh Rs.6156/- Rs.10/- 21.9.91 Challan No.15 CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 2 21.8.91 Abdul Rehman Rs.972/- Rs.20/- 2.7.91 Gian Chand Rs.1620/- Rs.15/- 20.2.91 Darshan Singh Rs.3240/- Rs.10/- Challan No.16 23.6.91 Satish Kumar Rs.2916/- Rs.10/- 1.7.91 Abdul Hamid Rs.972/- Rs.15/- Challan No.17 27.6.91 Imam Din Rs.4455/- Rs.15/- 29.4.91 Santosh Rani Rs.2700/- Rs.15/- 12.1.91 Suba Rs.3888/- Rs.10/- Challan No.18 5.6.91 Mohd.Nazir Rs.4800/- Rs.15/- 17.6.91 Kishan Singh Rs.6156/- Rs.15/- 25.1.91 Mohd. Rafi Rs.1134/- Rs.10/- Challan No.19 24.4.91 Sohan Lal Rs.1080/- Rs.15/- 2.5.91 Mohd.Habib Rs.3294/- Rs.30/- 14.5.91 Dr.Suman Singla Rs.1800/- Rs.15/- Challan No.20 20.7.91 Tanbir Ahmed Rs.2430/- Rs.15/- 31.3.91 Teja Singh Rs.2430/- Rs.20/- 26.3.91 Janeshwar Lal Rs.5400/- Rs.30/- Challan No.21 15.3.91 Surinder Kaur Rs.2916/- Rs.15/- 18.3.91 Gurdas Ram Rs.3456/- Rs.15/- 15.3.91 Roop Chand Rs.496/- NIL Challan No.22 4.3.91 Sukhdarshan Singh Rs.2700/- Rs.10/- 18.2.91 Lajpat Rai Rs.972/- Rs.15/- 18.2.91 Rali Rs.2511/- Rs.15/- Challan No.23 1.7.91 Nizam Din Rs.2455/- Rs.15/- 18.9.91 Kishan Chand Rs.2187/- Rs.15/- 31.1.91 Kasturi Lal Rs.1296/- Rs.10/- Challan No.24 20.1.90 Mohd.Rafiq Rs.1215/- Rs.10/- 13.11.90 Modh.Bashir Rs.1296/- Rs.15/- 1.1.91 Ajaib Singh Rs.1296/- Rs.10/- Challan No.25 20.10.90 Jagan Nath Rs.2160/- Rs.15/- 16.11.90 Rashid Rs.972/- Rs.15/- 20.11.90 Gulam Mohd. Rs.1026/- Rs.10/- Challan No.26 8.10.90 Darshan Kumar Rs.1620/- Rs.15/- 20.10.90 Sidi Chand Rs.1800/- Rs.15/- CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 3 25.10.90 Sidi Chand Rs.711/- Rs.10/- Challan No.27 25.9.90 Prem Singh Rs.810/- Rs.15/- Year 1990 Mukbul Ahmed Rs.1377/- Rs.15/- 27.9.90 Pargat Singh Rs.1620/- Rs.15/- Challan No.28 21.8.90 Rajinder Singh Rs.2450/- Rs.10/- 27.8.90 Hans Raj Rs.4617/- Rs.15/- 24.9.90 Rehm Din Rs.1450/- Rs.15/- Challan No.29 21.1.90 Nachhattar Rs.1500/- Rs.15/- 21.1.90 Rajwinder Singh Rs.4050/- Rs.15/- 5.3.90 Sohan Lal Rs.927/- Rs.10/- Challan No.30 15.9.90 Gulam Mohd. Rs.927/- Rs.10/- 24.10.90 Master Satpal Rs.1400/- Rs.10/- 9.8.90 Sukhdarshan Singh Rs.2282/- Rs.10/- 3. Similar allegations have been alleged by the prosecution against the petitioner-convict in all the connected cases. 4. As soon as, the scandal came to light, then the matter was reported to the police by the Municipal Committee, by virtue of which, three different cases were registered against the petitioner-convict, (i) vide FIR No.16 dated 10.2.1992, (ii) FIR No.75 dated 16.7.1994 and FIR No.205 dated 23.11.1997, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner-convict prepared the forged record, mis-appropriated the huge amount collected, in lieu of house tax from the tax payers and issued fabricated and forged receipts to them and reflected very lesser amount in the carbon copies. Thus, he cheated them and mis- appropriated the amount. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the above mentioned cases were registered against the petitioner-convict, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 6. During the course of investigation, the police prepared and submitted 17 challans arising out of FIR No.16 dated 10.2.1992, five challans arising out of CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 4 FIR No.75 dated 16.7.1994 and two challans arising out of FIR No.205 dated 23.11.1997 against the petitioner-convict to face trial for the commission of the indicated offences. 7. The trial Court charge sheeted the petitioner-convict for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges framed against him, examined PW1 Harjinder Singh, House Tax Clerk; PW2 Kishan Singh; PW4 ASI Gurnam Singh; PW5 Amarjit Singh Sekhon; Executive Officer and PW6 Subhash Chand Inspector, besides other tax payers. The prosecution has also tendered into documentary evidence the record of collection of house tax and receipts issued by the petitioner-convict in this relevant connection. Similar set of evidence was produced in all other connected cases by the prosecution. 8. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in case, vide FIR No.16 dated 10.2.1992, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.2002 in the following manner:- Under Sections Rigorous imprisonment Fine In default of payment of for a period of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment 409 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- One month 420 IPC Six months Rs.1,000/- One month 465 IPC Six months Rs.1,000/- One month 467 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- One month 468 IPC Six months Rs.1,000/- One month 471 IPC Six months Rs.1,000/- One month 9. Sequelly, he was also convicted and sentenced in cases arising out of FIR No.75 dated 16.7.1994, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.2.2004:- Under Sections Rigorous imprisonment Fine In default 409 IPC One year Rs.4,000/- One month 465 IPC Two years Rs.4,000/- One month 468 IPC Two years Rs.4,000/- One month 471 IPC One year Rs.4,000/- One month CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 5 10. Likewise, he was convicted and sentenced as well in cases arising out of FIR No.205 dated 23.11.1997, by way of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.2.2004:- Under Sections Rigorous imprisonment Fine In default R.I 409 IPC One year Rs.1,000/- One month 465 IPC One year Rs.1,000/- One month 468 IPC One year Rs.1,000/- One month 471 IPC One year Rs.1,000/- One month However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 11 Aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner-convict filed the appeals, which were dismissed as well by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgments dated 30.9.2004. 12. The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence of the Courts below and filed the present revision petitions. That is how I am seized of the matter. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions and the judgments of conviction deserve to be maintained in this regard. 14. Ex facie, the main celebrated arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner-convict has been falsely implicated in these cases and since the prosecution did not produce the original record of the receipts, so, he cannot be convicted for the indicated offences, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 15. As is evident from the record that the petitioner-convict has misappropriated the huge amount collected in lieu of house tax, but issued the forged and fabricated receipts to tax payers and very meagre amount was reflected in the carbon copies, as described in the aforesaid chart. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against him, examined PW1 Harjinder Singh, House Tax Clerk, who has duly proved the attested and carbon copies of the CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 6 receipts prepared in the same process on the basis of original record. Moreover, no objection whatsoever with regard to admissibility of receipts into evidence, was ever raised on behalf of the petitioner-convict during the course of trial. Not only that, the prosecution has also examined the tax payers, who have, inter-alia, maintained that the accused had collected the heavy amount, but reflected lesser amount in the carbon copies and issued forged and fabricated receipts to them. PW5 Amarjit Singh Sekhon, Executive Officer has maintained that accused Gurmeet Singh used to work as House Tax Clerk in Municipal Committee, during the relevant period from 1990 to 1992 and 1997 to 2001. Large number of tax payers had complained to him (PW5) against the accused and he informed the Deputy Director, Local Government, Patiala in this respect, vide letter (Ex.PW5/A). According to PW5, the accused had forged and fabricated the record and cheated the department as well as public at large. PW1 Harjinder Singh has categorically stated on oath that he is conversant with the handwriting of the accused as he has seen him signing and writing and he identified his writing on various documents. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel that the receipts are not proved, is not tenable in this context. 16. In this manner, the prosecution has brought on record more than sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner- convict and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.9.2004, the operative part of which is as under:- “Despite sufficient voluminous documentary proof that accused committed criminal breach of trust while acting as public servant and forged the record for cheating Municipal Committee and used the forged record as genuine document and he still denied that he has not committed any crime. Offence denied is twice committed. Satya (truth) is the basic value of life which has been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir, Mahatma Gandhi & Guru Nanak and people from different parts of the world come CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 7 here to learn the basic fundamental principle of life but post independence era has witnessed sharp decline in this basic value of life. Materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and quest for personal gain is so immense that the people do not have any regard for the truth. Proceedings in the court which were at one time considered to be pious and the people considered it their duty to tell the truth in the court now stands vitiated by attempts made by such like people as accused to pollute the ends of justice. Despite so much evidence against the accused he still denies the offence committed by him. Man may tell lies but not the document. This is exactly what the present case is of the accused. From the evidence produced on record there does not remain any doubt that the accused Gurmeet Singh remained posted in the Municipal Committee, Malerkotla as Clerk, House Tax from the year 1964 till 1991 and he collected house tax from different Tax Payers and issued receipts to them of the actual amount but showed minimum amount in the office record. The accused forged entries in the register of House Tax demand and collection and in the audit report the misappropriation of huge amount was traced. All this was done by the accused with dishonest fraudulent and malafide intention as he was having control of the record of the office and responsible for the collection of house tax and showed the nominal amount in the house tax record of the tax collected by creating valuable documents with dishonest intention and used the same as genuine.” 17. Meaning thereby, all the contentions now sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner-convict, have already been duly considered and decided by the courts below. There is ample, ocular and documentary evidence on record to prove the crime committed by the petitioner- convict in this context. The Courts below have thus rightly accepted the trustworthy and reliable evidence and recorded a finding of fact based on it that it was the petitioner-convict, who created the entire problem and caused the heavy loss to the Government and public (tax payers). Such findings of fact based on the evidence cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-convict “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 18. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has fairly acknowledged CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 8 that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the petitioner any more, in view of the finding of facts recorded by the courts below and the legal aspect that this Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence brought on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. At the same time, learned counsel submitted that there is a large scope of reduction in the sentence as the petitioner- convict has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for more than one year and seven months out of the total maximum sentence of two years awarded to him. The learned State counsel produced the custody certificate and acknowledged that the petitioner-convict has already undergone one year and seven months of sentence. 19. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the petitioner-convict has already suffered the agony of protracted prosecution of more than 18 years, he is first offender, moreover he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year and seven months out of total sentence of imprisonment for a period of two years and taking into consideration the totality of other facts, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, it will be in the interest and justice would be sub- served, if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him (one year and seven months) in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 20. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 21. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are dismissed. The impugned judgments of conviction are hereby maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is maintained. The orders of sentence are modified to the extent indicated here-in-above. 22. Needless to mention that since all the offences emanated from the identical transactions, so, all the sentences shall run concurrently, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mohd. Akthar alias Ibrahim Ahmed CRR No.90 of 2005 alongwith connected CRR Nos.26 to 30 & 91 to 108 of 2005 9 Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others AIR 1988 SC 2143. Sequelly, the procedural consequences will follow accordingly. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No