Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 Date of decision: 30.7.2010 Parampal Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Parampal Singh filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 24.1.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide impugned judgment, appeal against the judgment dated 4.8.1999 passed by JMIC, Ferozepur, was dismissed. As per judgment of JMIC, Ferozepur, revisionist-petitioner was convicted under Sections 420/461/471/473 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month under Sections 420, 461, 471 and 473 IPC, respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, revisionist was acquitted qua offences punishable under Sections 461, 471 and 473 IPC. Appeal qua offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Parampal Singh was the Proprietor of a college at Guruharsahai being run under the name and style Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 2 of Parampal College. Private college was not recognized by the Government. There were about 35 students and each student used to pay Rs.50/- per month as fee. Rs.100/- was collected from each student as admission fee with an assurance that roll numbers for matric class were to be supplied. At the time of annual examination, revisionist had been arranging the students in small group for appearing for matric examination at different centres. On 8.3.1988, some of the students had gone to the examination centre to appear in the examination but they were not allowed to sit in the examination on the allegation that their roll numbers were forged and fabricated. At the time of inspection, Flying Squad was contacted by the students and the Flying Squad after verifying the roll number slips from Punjab School Education Board on telephone came to know that roll number slips were not genuine. About 20 students gave written complaint to the police. Gurcharan Singh, Preet Mohinder Singh and Gurmukh Singh also made their statements to the police. On the basis of written complaint and the statements made by the students, case was registered against the accused. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented. Accused was charged under Sections 420/468/471/473 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. PW1 Rajpal Singh Sawna, PW2 Narinder Kumar, PW9 Gurcharan Singh, PW10 Gokal Chand and PW11 Nirmaljit Singh failed to identify the accused. Statements of PW9 and PW10 were incomplete because they had not appeared for cross-examination. Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 3 PW3 Manjit Singh, PW4 Kuldip Singh, PW5 Parmel Singh, PW7 Inderjit Singh and PW8 Bhupinderpal Singh did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. Statement of PW6 Parma Nand was also incomplete. PW12 Preet Mohinder Singh, PW13 Tarsem Lal, P14 Gurmukh Singh, PW15 Linkan Kumar, PW16 Balbir Singh and PW17 Davinder Singh stated that roll number slips handed over to them were fake. Accused present in Court used to collect fee from them. Admission fee of Rs.100/- per head was collected for getting the roll number slips issued but the roll number slips handed over to them were found to be fake and forged. Statements of remaining witnesses are of formal nature. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence, but no defence was led. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the revisionist and from the perusal of evidence on the file, revisionist was convicted by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned State counsel and gone through the evidence on file. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist did not collect payment from any student. No receipt on the file issued by the revisionist. No evidence on the file that forms were deposited by the revisionist with the Punjab School Education Board. Nothing on the file that roll numbers shown by the students to the Flying Squad were forged or Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 4 roll numbers were not issued by the Board. In fact, fee was deposited with the Board by the petitioner and roll numbers were genuine one. No case of the prosecution that forms deposited with the Board were forged one. Roll numbers issued to the students were not on the file. In case Court is of the opinion that the revisionist has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, then lenient view may be taken qua sentence, when occurrence is of the year 1988. Learned State counsel argued that revisionist was owning a private college, namely, Parampal College. There were 35 students. Revisionist used to collect Rs.50/- per month from each student on account of fee. Rs.100/- per head was collected as admission fee. Forms were deposited with the Board but roll numbers supplied by the revisionist were found to be fake. Regarding payment of Rs.100/- or Rs.50/-, no receipt because receipt was not being issued by the revisionist. Evidence is not to be re-evaluated or re-appreciated. In case there was some illegality or evidence on the file was misread by the trial Court, only then revisional Court can interfere. PW1 Rajpal Sawna in chief stated that in the year 1988, he was Central Superintendent in Mega Rai Uttar School. On 2.3.1988, accused Parampal came and reported that he was the Principal of a private college at Guruharsahai. He had produced list of 13 students issued by the Board. 11 students appeared. After collecting Rs.5/- per head for two days, students were allowed to sit in the examination. Roll number slips were not produced before him. PW2 Narinder Kumar stated that in the year 1988, he was the Superintendent to conduct examination of 10th class in D.C. Model School. Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 5 On 8.3.1988, accused Parampal facing trial along with 4 students came. He had produced 4 roll number slips alleged to be issued by the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali. After collecting Rs.5/- per head from the students, they were allowed to sit in the examination. Intimation was sent to the Board. There was a checking by the DEO, Ferozepur, and on checking, roll number slips were found to be fake. In cross-examination, PW1 and PW2 admitted that Parampal was not personally known to them. PW7 Inderjit Singh, Clerk, PSEB, Mohali, stated that in the year 1988, Parampal Singh had submitted forms of 12-13 students by forging stamps of PSEB. There was an enquiry by the Board. PW9 Gurcharan Singh stated that he was the student of Parampal College. Rs.50/- was being paid per month as fee. Rs.100/- was paid as admission fee. He had gone to examination centre of D.C. Model School, but was not allowed to appear in the examination. Flying squad came to the examination centre and on checking the roll number slips, same were found to be fake. Similar is the statement of PW10 Gokal Chand. PW11 Nirmaljit Singh stated that on 2.3.1988, he was Superintendent in Government High School (Boys), Guruharsahai. Parampal Singh had handed over 14 roll number slips issued by the Punjab School Education Board to him. After collecting Rs.5/- from each of the students, students were allowed to appear in the examination. After comparison of the signatures of Mr.P.N.Parashar, roll number slips were found to be not genuine. Report was submitted to the Board. Suggestion was given to the witness that some one was posing himself as Parampal Singh and had handed over roll number slips to him. PW12 Preet Mohinder Singh stated that he was the student of Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 6 Parampal College and used to pay Rs.50/- per month as fee. Rs.100/- was paid as admission fee. Roll number slip handed over to him by Parampal Singh was found to be fake by the Flying Squad. Similar are the statements of PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16 and PW17. PW12 to PW17 stated that they used to pay Rs.50/- per month as fee and Rs.100/- per head was paid to Parampal Singh as admission fee. Regarding payment of Rs.50/- or Rs.100/-, no receipt was issued. One thing is clear from the statements of above said witnesses that payment was made to Parampal Singh, Principal of Parampal College. No suggestion was given to the witnesses that Parampal Singh was not the owner of the college. No question to produce receipt when receipt was not being issued by the petitioner. Before the occurrence, witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner. Witnesses are from different villages. There was no idea to connive to depose against the petitioner by filing written complaint. Evidence shows that forms were deposited with the Board by the petitioner. If the judgment of trial Court was perverse or evidence was misread only then Revisional Court was to re-evaluate or re-assess the evidence on file and to interfere. Petitioner induced the students to deposit Rs.50/- per month as fee and Rs.100/- per student as admission fee. Roll number slips were supplied by the petitioner but after checking, same were found to be not genuine one. On account of this reason, students were not allowed to appear in the examination. Petitioner when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then did not state a word that he was not the proprietor of Parampal College and why number of students had deposed against him. PW12 to PW17 were Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 7 the students of Parampal College and in Court stated that they had made payment to the petitioner for issuance of roll number slips and to appear in the examination, but the petitioner failed to procure roll number slips. Non- production of roll number slips or receipts regarding collection of payment, not fatal because case of the prosecution was that the accused used to collect payment. Receipt was not issued. On the one hand, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that forms were submitted in the office of PSEB and on the other hand, argued that payment was not collected from the students. In case petitioner had not collected payment from the students, then no question of depositing the forms because forms are to be submitted after collecting payment. Petitioner is not clear as to whether he had collected payment or had submitted forms in the office of PSEB. From the very beginning, intention of the petitioner was dishonest. With malafide intention, petitioner induced the students to deposit payment. After collecting payment, i.e., Rs.5/- per head, students were allowed to sit in the examination and later on, on enquiry by the Board, roll number slips were found to be fake. That means, evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. Nothing on the file that evidence was misread or impugned judgment is perverse. Last submission of learned defence counsel for the petitioner was to take lenient view when the occurrence is of the year 1988. No doubt, occurrence is of the year 1988, but the petitioner dishonestly collected payment from different students. One year of the students was spoiled. Keeping in view of the nature of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, I am of the opinion that already a lenient view was taken directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable Crl.Revision No.251 of 2002 8 under Section 420 IPC. In case lenient view is taken, then the order is to instigate number of persons to dupe innocent students. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed. 30.7.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE