-1- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 10, 2010. Manohar Lal ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. Chanan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. -2- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the afore-stated Criminal Revisions as they arise out of the same First Information Report. Petitioners Manohar Lal and Chanan Singh were convicted by the trial Court under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both Manohar Lal and Chanan Singh filed separate appeals before the lower appellate Court challenging their conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court. The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence these revision petitions by petitioners Manohar Lal and Chanan Singh. I have heard Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003 and Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. -3- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. The instant F.I.R was registered on 5.7.1999 at the instance of complainant Narinder Singh, who was driving the Bus boarded by the members of a marriage party. On 5.7.1999, at about 6.30 A.M when the bus was returning from Mohali and had reached in the area of Village Jeowal, the petitioners got the bus stopped. One of the petitioners had impersonated as District Transport Officer and the other as Regional Transport Officer. The petitioners demanded documents of the bus from the complainant-driver by saying that either the bus was to be challaned or the complainant should pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-. The Driver as well as passengers of the bus did not accede to the said demand of the petitioners. At this, the accused stated that they would challan the bus. In the meanwhile, Jagir Singh, Sarpanch of Village Bachhuana appeared on the scene of occurrence and the Driver got confirmation from said Jagir Singh about the identity of the petitioners. Jagir Singh apprised the Driver of the fact that the petitioners were not District Transport Officer or Regional Transport Officer. Petitioner Chanan Singh managed to escape from the place of occurrence while petitioner Manohar Lal was captured by the persons present there. It was revealed that petitioner Manohar Singh was impersonating himself as District Transport Officer whereas petitioner Chanan Singh was impersonating as Regional Transport Officer. After recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the -4- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. petitioners as aforesaid. The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The scooter of petitioner Chanan Singh, who had managed to escape from the spot, was taken into possession by the police from the place of occurrence. Thus, the identity of petitioner Chanan Singh had been revealed at the time of taking his scooter in possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.W.6/D. The case of petitioner Chanan Singh himself, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that his scooter was already with the police. On the face of it, this plea appears to be an afterthought. As stated above, petitioner Manohar Lal was apprehended at the spot by complainant Narinder Singh and others and was handed over to the police on the same day. The identity of both the petitioners stood established on record. Complainant Narinder Singh (P.W.5) and Nirmal Singh (P.W.4) did not identify accused-petitioner Chanan Singh in Court. Same was the case in respect of Jagir Singh (P.W.3). However, keeping in view the circumstances, explained above, it hardly affects the merits of the case. Petitioner Chanan Singh was a police official. He had remained posted at Police Station City, Ropar. He had also remained posted at Morinda with the Traffic Incharge. It is a matter of common knowledge that public witnesses are generally reluctant to depose against police officials. Besides, Jagir Singh (P.W.3), Ex Sarpanch, had been residing in the same area where petitioner Chanan Singh resided. -5- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. He did not want to take trouble of annoying petitioner Chanan Singh. Such cases where police officials are accused have to be considered keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. In this case, the Scooter Bajaj Chetak contained same Chasis Number and Engine Number which had been sold to petitioner Chanan Singh and had been recovered from the place of occurrence. The identity of petitioner Chanan Singh had been revealed at the time of taking of his scooter into possession by the police vide recovery memo Exhibit P.W.6/D. It is also worth-mentioning that on behalf of accused-petitioner Chanan Singh, a suggestion was given to Daljit Singh (P.W.2) and Assistant Sub Inspector Updesh Rai (P.W.6) that scooter of Chanan Singh had been impounded by the Police of Kathagarh and that when he had gone to get back the scooter an altercation took place leading to the framing up of this case against petitioner Chanan Singh. This suggestion was not admitted by the said witnesses. It revealed that it was the case of Chanan Singh petitioner himself that his scooter was with the police of Police -6- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. Station, Kathgarh. The testimony of complainant Narinder Singh (P.W,.5) partly corroborated by Nirmal Singh (P.W.4), when taken together along with the recovery of the scooter of Chanan Singh from the place of occurrence and the admission of petitioner Chanan Singh that his scooter was already with the police and that when he had gone to take back the same, an altercation took place leading to his false implication in this case, leave no room for doubt that the case of the prosecution stands proved against Chanan Singh. Insofar as petitioner Manohar Lal, as mentioned above, he had been apprehended at the spot by the complainant and other persons and had been handed over to the police immediately thereafter. For the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-petitioners and they have rightly been convicted under Section 170 of the Code. Their conviction for this offence is, accordingly, confirmed. Insofar as sentence awarded to petitioners Manohar Lal and Chanan Singh, both of them have undergone incarceration for more than two and a half months each. The incident relates to July, 1999. The Sword of Damocles has, thus, remained hanging over the head of the petitioners for more than ten and a half years. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for more than two and a half months each, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending them to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous -7- Criminal Revision No.1430 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1454 of 2003. imprisonment of one year awarded to the petitioners under Section 170 of the Code is reduced to the period already undergone by them without altering the sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed on each petitioner and the default clause. I order accordingly. The petitioners are also burdened with costs of litigation which are quantified at Rs.50,000/- i.e Rs.25000/- each petitioner. The petitioners are directed to deposit this amount in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the impugned sentence order, qua the petitioner who fails to deposit the fine as aforesaid, shall remain unaltered. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 170 of the Code, the impugned sentence order stands modified conditionally to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, these revision petitions are hereby dismissed. March 10, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE