CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1874 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 09, 2011 Sukhjinder Singh @ Dhudhi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC and upon being found guilty, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different terms. He impugned this order by filing an appeal. His appeal has been dismissed and finally he has been imposed rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for his conviction for an offence under Section 420 IPC coupled with fine of `1000/-. In default, he is to undergo imprisonment for one month. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1874 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Further, the petitioner has also been sentenced to suffer 2 years RI for his conviction for offences under Sections 468, 471, 472 IPC each coupled with fine of `1,000/- for conviction under each offence and identical imprisonment of one month separately in case of default of payment of fine. In addition, the petitioner has further been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI for his conviction for an offence under Section 467 IPC with a fine of `2,000/- and in default, he is directed to further undergo RI for 2 months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.3.2005, ASI Gurmit Singh received an information while he was on patrol duty that petitioner Sukhjinder Singh son of Dalip Singh was earlier working as a Deed Writer and is moving in the city to do the work of deed writer in a concealed manner. It was also alleged that he is keeping some stolen stamps and is preparing forged registrations, driving licences of DTO Office under the forged signatures. Allegation also was that he was getting renewed the driving licences under some conspiracy and also writing down the pronote etc. on the stamp papers. It was alleged that he was doing this work in an illegal manner while sitting at different places and also writing down various agreements. The secret informer had also informed the police that if raid was conducted, then forged stamps of various officers could be recovered from his possession. After sending ruqqa for CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1874 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: registration of a case, the police had conducted the raid. The petitioner was apprehended with forged R.Cs, driving licences and stamps, which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Rough site plan was got prepared and search memo of the accused was also prepared. The forged and original papers were taken into possession and statement of Naib Tehsildar, Kuldip Singh, was recorded. On this basis, the petitioner was prosecuted and ultimately convicted for the offences, as already noticed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no witness was examined by the prosecution to prove that the signatures on the R.Cs, driving licences or other documents etc., taken from the possession of the petitioner, were that of petitioner or were ever produced to prove forgery. The submission is that in the absence of this evidence, it can not be said that the said licences or the documents recovered from the possession of the petitioner were forged one to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel further contends that recoveries were also fastened on the petitioner as no independent person was joined to vouchsafe the said recoveries. I am not impressed with either of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. There is no reason or occasion for the petitioner to be in possession of any documents like driving licences, R.Cs and other documents CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1874 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: recovered from his possession. His licence as a Deed Writer had been suspended. To raise doubt about recovery, the petitioner has simply pleaded that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery. He has otherwise not alleged or urged any reason to impute any motive to the police or anyone else to foist this recovery falsely on him to implicate the petitioner in this case. These submissions are made only to raise some ground to make a defence. The petitioner has not been able to raise reasonable doubt either in the recovery or in the case of prosecution. In view of the evidence of recovery, there is no reason to falsely blame the petitioner. The fact that some of these documents concededly were found to be forged, is even not disputed. How forged documents were being carried, defies any explanation but the one advanced by the prosecution. No benefit can accrue to the petitioner. The submission that the witnesses whose signatures are forged are not examined, need not have been examined. If the petitioner was to get any benefit, he could have called them to prove that the documents are genuine. Incidentally, the State has also placed before me the custody certificate, which is taken on record, which is further revealing about the conduct of the petitioner. Not only that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced for the offence in the present case but while he was released on CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1874 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: bail, he still did not desist from committing the similar offence and there is another FIR No.69 of 2009 registered against him under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The petitioner, thus, appears to be incorrigible. No case for showing any leniency, as prayed for is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE