IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 21, 2009 Arun Dutt ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.P.S.Ahluwalia,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 1.3.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. Vide order dated 2.3.2001, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 420/120-B IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 467/120-B IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 468/120-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 471/120-B IPC. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2002 -2- petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 26.11.2001. Hence, the present revision . The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “ 3. Appellants-accused Raj Kumar, Jeet Ram, Jagdish Singh and Jagmal Singh had received loan from Land Mortgage Bank, Barara by forging jamabandis in their names in fact when they had no agricultural land. The matter was investigated by State Vigilance bureau. An enquiry was conducted first of all. Acting upon the enquiry report of 19.6.1987, Director General of Police (S.V.B.) made a communication to the Government. On 31.8.1987, a case was registered against the accused. Further investigations were to be conducted.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the accused were that he forged and fabricated the jamabandis showing co-accused Raj Kumar, Jeet Ram, Jagdish Singh and Jagmal Singh as owners of land ,whereas, in-fact, they did not own any land. By doing so, petitioner enabled the said co-accused to get loan from the Bank. However, the said loan had since been repaid by Raj Kumar etc. to the Bank. The documents which were allegedly forged and fabricated by the petitioner were never put to him when his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short). This, in fact, vitiated the trial. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Asraf Ali vs. State of Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2002 -3- Assam 2008(3)RCR (Criminal) 835. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be upheld as vide the said judgment merely retrial has been ordered from the stage of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had forged and fabricated the entries in the jamabandis showing co- accused Raj Kumar, Jeet Ram Jagdish Singh and Jagmal Singh as owners of land although they did not own any land to enable them to get loan from the Bank. By doing so, co-accused Raj Kumar and Jeet Ram took a loan of Rs. 6000/- each from the Bank,whereas, co-accused Jagdish Singh took a loan of Rs,10,500/- and co-accused Jagmal Singh took a loan of Rs.12,000/- from the Bank. A perusal of the paras 13 and 34 of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the loan amount had,in fact, been repaid by Raj Kumar, Jeet Ram, Jagdish Singh and Jagmal singh to the Bank. The said fact was deposed by PW2 Sh.Shanti Parkash. This shows that, infact, the land Mortgage Bank has not suffered any loss on account of loan taken by Raj Kumar etc. as the same has since been repaid along with interest. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2002 -4- The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. In the present case, the documents which were alleged to have been forged by the petitioner were not put to him by the Court when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. This has naturally caused prejudice to the petitioner because important material which was not put to the petitioner has been used against him for basing his conviction by the trial Court. The appellate Court has ordered retrial of the petitioner from the stage of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case the offence was allegedly committed in the year 1987. FIR was registered on 24.12.1987. Petitioner is, thus, facing criminal proceedings since then. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since no loss has been caused to the Bank as the amount in question has already been deposited by the co-accused who had taken loan with interest, it would be just and expedient to quash the conviction and sentence of the petitioner rather than remanding the case for retrial as ordered by the appellate Court although in a given case retrial can be ordered from the stage of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. If any material evidence Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2002 -5- has not been put to the accused at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the appellate Court dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ambala is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. ( Sabina ) Judge April 21, 2009 arya