Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 Date of Decision: 16.2.2010 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner along with one Rajinder Singh was named as accused in case FIR No. 95 dated 17.7.1992 registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner as he will pray to this Court that taking pendency of the present case for the last 18 years into consideration, the petitioner may be released on probation. It is further prayed that the fact that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial be construed as mitigating circumstance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of cheating. It is in the context of the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner that this Court may notice the facts of the case briefly. On 17.7.1992, a police party headed by Surjit Singh, Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 2 Inspector, was present at Tribune Chowk for patrol duty. A secret information was received that Rajinder Singh, in conspiracy with other accused issue transfer vouchers for obtaining L.P.G. connections and also prepared forged seals of different companies. It was informed by the secret informer that on basis of forged record, gas connections were sold by Rajinder Singh for consideration of Rs.2,300/- per gas connection and, therefore, the accused had earned a lot of money and had caused financial loss to the petroleum companies. Taking the information to be reliable, a raid was conducted and accused Rajinder Singh was arrested on 17.7.1992, whereas the present petitioner Madan Lal was arrested on 22.7.1992. During investigation, from the pocket of accused Madan Lal, two blank transfer vouchers of Sachan Gas Distributors, Kanpur and transfer voucher No. 344927 of Delhi Gas Agency, Delhi, were recovered. It is alleged that accused had sold these transfer vouchers to J.Singh, Sardara Singh and Mohinder Singh. A disclosure statement of accused Madan Lal was recorded that he used to purchase the blank transfer vouchers for Rs.250/- from accused Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar was arrested but no recovery was effected from him. The prosecution contended that the present petitioner in conspiracy with Rajinder Singh, was selling forged gas connections and, thus, committed cheating of the amount of Rs.6,900/-. Since the present petitioner only stands convicted for offence under Section 420 IPC, it will be apposite to reproduce charge framed by the trial Court on 2.1.1996, for offence under Section 420 IPC:- “That you Rajinder Singh in the year between 8.4.87 to 16.7.92 in the area of PS, Sector Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 3 31, Chandigarh cheated to Kirpal Singh, AC Singh, Mange Ram, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, AG Jayawardhne, Hari Singh and Smt. V.Ravi by dishonestly inducing them to deliver Rs.2300/- from each to you which was the property of above named PWs, in lieu of fake transfer vouchers of gas connections, which is capable of being converted into valuable security and that you thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and within my cognizance”. The trial Court acquitted Rajinder Singh and observed as under qua the petitioner:- “However, the accused Madan Lal is held guilty for forging transfer vouchers Ex.P1 & P2 and issuing fake gas connection to PW.2 Jaswinder Singh for consideration of Rs.2,300/-. Therefore, he is held guilty and convicted U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Madan Lal and Rajinder Singh U/s 120-B IPC and offence U/s 120-B is not made out against both the accused. Let the accused Madan Lal be heard on the quantum of sentence”. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner as under:- “U/s 420 IPC: R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.100/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 4 for one week. U/s 467 IPC: R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.200/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 15 days. U/s 468 IPC: R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.100/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one week. U/s 471 IPC: R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.100/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one week”. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court had set aside the conviction of petitioner for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The lower Appellate Court came to conclusion that the petitioner had cheated Jaswinder Singh of Rs.2,300/- and affirmed the finding of trial Court so far conviction of petitioner under Section 420 IPC is concerned. It will be pertinent to reproduce para 17 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court:- “17. None-the-less, the accused is still hard pressed to wriggle out of the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC. Even if PW Sardara Singh has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and third of the duped person Mohinder Singh was not Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 5 examined by the prosecution at all, yet from the testimony of PW2 Jaswinder Singh, it is established that Madan Lal had induced by deception Jaswinder Singh to pay him Rs.2300/- believing Madan Lal that he would provide him with connection for LPG Cylinder and a regulator. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the cross-examination of PW Jaswinder Singh to urge that Madan Lal was not previously known to the witness and as it is admitted by Jaswinder Singh in his cross- examination that he had seen Madan Lal for the first time in the Court during his statement after the day on which he had obtained Rs.2300/- from him. Identification of the accused by the witness in the given circumstances be not taken as conclusive. This argument is not enough to carry the day for the accused. It is not a case of hit and run in which identity of the accused could have been questioned. Rather the circumstances suggest that PW Jaswinder Singh and Madan Lal accused had come across each other in a manner which was enough for Jaswinder Singh to have imprint of the accused in his brain. Reference in this context can be made to Ramanbhai Narainbhai Patel vs. State of Gujrat reported at 2000(1) RCR ( Crl.) 93 SC., wherein it has been held as under:- Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 6 “Accused not known to the eye witness already. Identification parade not held but eye witness identified the accused in Court. Their evidence relied upon on account of fact that occurrence took place in broad day light and eye witness were seriously injured. Identity of accused would remain well imprinted in their minds. No identification parade held. PWs identifying the accused in the Court. Evidence may be treated of weak nature, but cannot be said to be totally irrelevant or inadmissible”. Revelation of PW Jaswinder Singh that Madan Lal had received payment of Rs.2300/- from him 2-3 days before Gas Cylinder and Regulator was delivered to him, adding further that documents were got filled by the witness from Madan Lal seals fate of argument so advanced with regard to identity of Madan Lal”. Initially, the case of prosecution was that petitioner had cheated to the extent of Rs.6,900/-. However, during the trial, prosecution could only establish that the petitioner had cheated Jaswinder Singh of amount of Rs.2,300/-. For this amount, petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 18 years. The lower Appellate Court had reduced the sentence from one year to nine Criminal Revision No. 1435 of 2004 7 months. The petitioner was taken into custody on 15.7.2001 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 18.9.2004. Thus, the petitioner has also undergone two months and three days of his actual sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner, due to extreme poverty may have cheated Jaswinder Singh of Rs.2,300/-. Counsel further submitted that from the last 18 years, petitioner has committed no other offence and living a life of honest and peaceful citizen. It is further submitted that he is a sole bread earner of his family. Taking these factors into consideration, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to reform himself and lead a life of rectitude. Thus, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall undertake to appear and receive sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so. He shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. However, the cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. In case cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to him. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 16, 2010 “DK”