CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1982 of 2005 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Rajpal Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh-petitioners have preferred this revision to impugn the judgment dated 28.9.2005, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Criminal Appeal No. 25 dated 10.9.2004. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.2004, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, in P. Ch. No. 50 dated 22.4.1998, arising out of FIR No. 287 dated 8.12.1996, registered under Sections 420/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Samana, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -2- 30.8.2004, both the petitioners were convicted under Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ` 500/- each. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a letter dated 1.12.1996, was sent by the Senior XEN PSEB, Sangrur, on the allegation that as per service books of Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh, they have joined as Assistant Line Man at Ferozepur on 12.11.1987 and later on they have joined at Patran on 24.5.1988. They were transferred to Sub Division, Bhawanigarh on 14.6.1989. After verification of their service books XEN, Ferozepur, reported that no service books of Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh, have been prepared in his office, moreover, the service books were not signed by the Divisional Accountant and XEN, of the relevant period posted at Ferozepur. No salary was drawn from Ferozepur Division. Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh, by presenting forged documents regarding their transfer from Ferozepur to Samana Sub Division, have joined the duties as Assistant Line Man. After verification of the service books of Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh, FIR was registered. Application Ex. PW-2/A was moved requesting Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh-petitioners to supply their specimen signatures but both have refused to give their specimen signatures. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 420/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -3- In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 3 witnesses, namely PW-1 Labh Singh, Divisional Accountant, PSEB, Samana, PW-2 SI Ajmer Singh and PW-3 Beena Kumari, Divisional Superintendent, Ferozepur. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of Rajpal Singh, was that infact he was supplying milk at the house of Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, who got him appointed. Said Sukhdev Singh, brought his appointment order and got him joined the service. Transfer order was passed in routine. Defence version of Roop Singh, was that he was working as a labourer with Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, who got him appointed. As per appointment order, he joined the service. After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.2004, appeal was preferred by the petitioners but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners were serving in the house of Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB. They had handed over their certificates to Sukhdev Singh. Appointment letters were got issued by Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB. Petitioner had joined CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -4- service in view of the appointment letters handed over to them by Sukhdev Singh, SDO. Transfer orders were passed in routine and in view of the transfer orders, petitioners had joined at Sub Division, Samana. No document was forged or fabricated by the petitioners. In case, any document was forged or fabricated then Sukhdev Singh, the then SDO, PSEB, is liable and not the petitioners. Petitioners were not well educated and they had no knowledge about the working of the office of the XEN. Petitioners being semi-literate are not in a position to forge or fabricate the document i.e. transfer orders. Petitioners were acquitted under Section 420 IPC but they were convicted under Sections 471/465 IPC but when the transfer order was not forged or fabricated by the appellants then they are not liable. Transfer order was only marked as 'Mark-A', so, un-exhibited document cannot be read into evidence. Complainant i.e. Nirmal Singh, Senior XEN, Sangrur, or Harbans Lal, Assistant XEN, Samana, were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution only three witnesses were examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioners are the first offenders. No reason was given for denying the benefit of probation. If the Court is of the opinion that petitioners have committed offence punishable under Sections 471/465 IPC then lenient view be taken because both the petitioners remained in custody for about 1 month and 17 days each. Learned State counsel argued that according to the story, on the basis of transfer orders, petitioner had joined their duties as Assistant Line Man at Patran, Sub Division, PSEB but nothing on the file that there was an advertisement for the post of Assistant Line Man CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -5- and in pursuance of the advertisement, petitioners had applied to the concerned authority and after that they were selected and in view of the appointment letters, they had joined at Ferozepur Division. Service books of the petitioners were got verified from Ferozepur Division but service books were found to be not genuine one. Salary of the petitioners was not drawn in Ferozepur Division. For the first time in view of the transfer orders, petitioner had joined in Sub Division, Samana. Petitioners are the beneficiaries when they did not apply for the post of Assistant Line Man then no question of appointment letter or transfer order. In the absence of appointment letter petitioners cannot join as Assistant Line Man either in Ferozepur Division or in Sub Division, Patran of PSEB. If petitioners were the employees of Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, then they are liable because they are the only persons who can connive with Sukhdev Singh, SDO, to forge the appointment letters and transfer orders. According to the prosecution story, the petitioners in view of forged transfer orders joined as Assistant Line Man, in Sub Division, Samana whereas defence version of the petitioners is that they were the employees of Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB. They had supplied their documents to Sukhdev Singh, who had managed to procure the appointment letters. No doubt, out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution only three witnesses were examined but when there are number of witnesses then prosecution not bound to examine all the witnesses. Quality of evidence is to be seen not the quantity of evidence. Allegation against the petitioners is that on the basis of transfer orders they had joined as Assistant Line Man in Patran, Sub Division, but the CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -6- question is whether the petitioners were selected as Assistant Line Man. No question to the PWs that there was an advertisement for the post of Assistant Line Man. In view of the advertisement, the petitioners had submitted their applications along with the certificates regarding their qualification and after that there was a test or without test in view of the certificates, the petitioners were selected as Assistant Line Man. No question was put to the witnesses that there were appointment letters in favour of the appellants. When the appellants did not apply to any authority for appointment as Assistant Line Man then no question of appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Line Man. When any post is lying vacant then there is an advertisement in the newspaper. In view of the advertisement, applications are invited from the eligible candidates. After that sometimes without test or interview appointment letters are issued on the basis of merit only and sometimes appointment letters are issued in view of the test or interview but in the present case there was no advertisement. Petitioners had not applied to any authority for the post of Assistant Line Man. No appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioners. Service books of the petitioners are on the file and according to the service books, petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man at Ferozepur Division. After joining in Sub Division, Samana, service books were sent to Ferozepur Division for verification. After verification, service books were found to be fake because salary of the petitioners as Assistant Line Man was not drawn in Ferozepur Division. If the petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man in Ferozepur Division, then Department was expected to draw their salary from the concerned Treasury but salary of the petitioners was not drawn by CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -7- Ferozepur Division. Transfer orders were submitted by the petitioners and on the basis of transfer orders petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man. Allegation of the petitioners was that all the documents were supplied to them by Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, but this fact is not correct one. When the petitioners were not eligible for the post of Assistant Line Man and there was no advertisement and in pursuance of the advertisement there was no application then without advertisement or application there was no question of appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Line Man but the petitioners in view of the transfer orders had joined at Sub Division, Patran, so, they were expected to produce defence as to how they were appointed as Assistant Line Man and where is the original copy of the appointment letter. Both the petitioners produced their transfer orders before Bhagwan Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, PSEB, but no question was put to the witnesses that transfer order was produced by Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB. When the petitioners were never appointed as Assistant Line Man by PSEB then no question of joining PSEB as Assistant Line Man. As per service books, petitioners had served in PSEB Ferozepur Division but after verification of the service-books, it was found that petitioner did not join Ferozepur Division, so, no question of salary. PW-3 Veena Kumari, Divisional Superintendent, Sub Urban Division, Ferozepur, stated that documents furnished by the petitioners are fake. Transfer orders were not issued by the Sub Urban Division, Ferozepur. As per transfer orders petitioners had initially joined as CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -8- Assistant Line Man in Ferozepur Division. After serving Ferozepur Division, petitioners were transferred to Sub Division, Samana. On the basis of transfer orders petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man but as discussed earlier there was no advertisement by the PSEB for the post of Assistant Line Man. Application were not invited. Petitioners did not apply for the post of Assistant Line Man. When there was no application then no question of appointment letter. When the petitioners did not join as Assistant Line Man in Ferozepur Division then no question of transfer orders. Labh Singh (PW-1) brought the summoned record and stated that as per record following documents were submitted by Rajpal Singh and Roop Singh-petitioners: i) Ex. P-1 is the application of Roop Singh for seeking fix medical allowance. Ex. PB is the medical report of Roop Singh. This shows that his medical was conducted by Civil Surgeon Ferozepur. Ex. PD is the copy of the first page of service book of Rajpal, which shows that this service book was prepared by SDO (Urban) Jalalabad, Ex. PE is the joining report submitted by accused Roop Singh for joining at Patran and Ex. PH is the joining report of Rajpal Singh. In this joining report, order No. 206 dated 23.5.1998, has been referred as per, which both were posted at Samana by Executive Engineer Distribution Samana as per the copy of order No. 206 dated 23.5.1998 CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -9- Ex. PF. ii) Vide application Ex. PJ Rajpal Singh appellant requested the Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Samana to draw his initial pay till his service book is received from the concerned office from where he has been transferred to Samana. Vide letter Ex. PK the service book of Rajpal Singh was sent by Executive engineer Sangrur to Executive Engineer, Samana.” Mark-A is the document on the basis of which petitioners had joined at Samana but Labh Singh (PW-1) stated that no order No. 52 dated 11.5.1998, was ever issued or found in the record of Sub Urban Division, Ferozepur. As per Mark-A, petitioners were transferred from Jalalabad Sub Division Urban to Samana Sub Division. Suggestion was not given to PW-1 Labh Singh, that the petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man in PSEB on the basis of order No. 62 dated 11.6.1988, Mark-A. PW-1 Labh Singh, stated that petitioners had collected their salary and other emoluments and got their transfer with the consent of the Sangrur Circle. Ex. PW-3/A, is the copy of the relevant entry of despatch register but as per register no letter No. 13443 dated 4.11.1987, was issued. As per entry of service book of Rajpal Singh, Mark-C i.e. letter No. 13443 dated 4.11.1987, issued by the Executive Engineer Distribution, Sub Urban Division, Ferozepur, petitioners were appointed as Assistant Line Man. He further stated that as per despatch register no letter was written to Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur, on 7.11.1987 for medical examination of Roop Singh. As CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -10- per letter No. 6735 dated 2.5.1988, Mark-A, letter was sent to Executive Engineer Sub Urban Samana. Consent was sought for adjusting Roop Singh and Rajpal Singh as Assistant Line Man there but witness stated that this letter was not issued by the Executive Engineer, Ferozepur. Lastly stated that such type of letters were not issued by one Executive Engineer to the other Executive Engineer. Transfers are made at circle level by the office of the Superintending Engineer. PW-3 Veena Kumari, as per record stated that petitioners were never appointed as Assistant Line Man at Ferozepur that means the petitioners on the basis of forged orders of their transfer from Ferozepur Division, joined in the office of PSEB Sub Division, Samana. No suggestion to the witness that they were appointed as Assistant Line Man in PSEB. Appointment letters not on the file but one thing is clear from the evidence on file that petitioners had joined at Patran and have collected their salaries but the documents on the basis of which petitioners had joined as Assistant Line Man are forged and fabricated. Petitioners by joining as Assistant Line Man, collected salary for the period of their employment but there was no appointment letter. If the appointment letter was arranged by Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, then petitioners are also liable because without their consent or connivance, Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB, had no reason to forge and fabricate the appointment letter and transfer order. When there was no appointment letter then no question of transfer order but on the basis of transfer orders, petitioners had joined Sub Division, Samana. Simple allegation of the petitioners is that all the documents were arranged by Sukhdev Singh, SDO, PSEB. Sukhdev Singh, SDO, was not the beneficiary. There was no reason to forge and fabricate the documents by Sukhdev CRR No. 1982 of 2005 -11- Singh without the connivance of the petitioners. Petitioners were to explain how they joined as Assistant Line Man on the basis of transfer orders, when they were not appointed as Assistant Line Man as per order of the competent authority. Revisional Court is not to re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence on file. Revisional Court is to interfere only if the Court is of the view that evidence on file was misread. When both the Courts below after scrutinizing the evidence on file rightly opined that petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 471/465 IPC, then I am of the opinion that no reason to differ with the Ist Appellate Court. Petitioner Rajpal Singh, is a labourer and was 43 years old at the time of occurrence and is to support three children. He was not a previous convict. Roop Singh was 42 years old and is a car driver. He is also to support small children. Both have already undergone 1 month and 17 days each out of the actual sentence. Service of the petitioners were terminated. At this stage they are not in service. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Instead of directing the petitioners to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, they are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (1 month 17 days each). They are further directed to deposit ` 10,000/- each as fine within two months before the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, instant revision petition without merits is dismissed. July 25, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE