IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 442 of 2005 Date of decision: December 24, 2010 Kartar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurvinder S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Kartar Singh accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') was prosecuted for moving an application for releasing the tempo bearing registration No.MH-14-0140 on supurdari by impersonating himself as Siri Krishan. Consequently, on trial, vide judgment dated 19.7.2004, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 419 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 468/471 IPC on both counts. Factual matrix of the case is that on 11.11.1997, Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak challaned the aforesaid tempo under the Motor Vehicles Act, regarding which the accused while impersonating himself as Siri Krishan (owner recorded in the registration book) obtained the release order on furnishing surety bond and supurdginama and further furnished supurdari by impersonating himself as Siri Krishan. Thereafter, he moved contempt application while impersonating himself as Siri Krishan. On coming to know that the petitioner was not Siri Krishan, SDM, Rohtak moved an application for proceeding against the petitioner for impersonating himself as Siri Krishan. Siri Krishan also filed an affidavit Ex.PA stating that he had not moved an application nor filed any contempt application and he also did not furnish the supurdaginama, therefore, the case was registered against the petitioner and was investigated. Ultimately he was challaned. The petitioner was charged under Sections 205/419/468/471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Criminal Revision No. 442 of 2005 -2- In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that he had purchased the said tempo from Jagdish Singh son of Jaswant Singh resident of village Kaloi. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to prove that the petitioner had moved an application before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak for taking tempo on supurdari. However, he being the owner of the said vehicle cannot be said to have committed any forgery. To the contrary, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana while taking me through the entire evidence has submitted that the petitioner has not denied the ownership over the tempo ; the tempo was not transferred in his name but was taken from his possession, therefore, it was only he and none else who had applied for taking the tempo on supurdari. Having pondered over the arguments advanced by both the parties, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. SI Balwant Singh (PW11) has stated that he took the tempo in question from the possession of Kartar Singh son of Sultan Singh vide memo Ex.PW11/B. There is no dispute with the fact that the registration of the said tempo was in the name of Siri Krishan and it was never transferred in the name of the petitioner. There is no denying a fact that the tempo changed hands and ultimately it had come in possession of Kartar Singh petitioner. To prove the original ownership of Siri Krishan he (Siri Krishan) himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and stated that he had purchased the same from Bajaj Auto Agency Hisar Road in 1991 and he had sold the same, in the same year, to Satbir Singh son of Pirthi and had delivered the bills to him. However, he denied if he had applied for taking the tempo in question on supurdari or that he ever had furnished the supurdaginama in the court. He has proved his affidavit Ex.PA in this regard. He has categorically denied if he moved an application on Criminal Revision No. 442 of 2005 -3- 18.11.1997 mark-4 for supurdari. He denied his signatures on mark-B, mark-C (supurdari nama) mark-4. However, he has proved the bill Ex.PB regarding the purchase of tempo by him. Om Parkash (PW4), DRK, Sessions Court, Rohtak has proved the application releasing the tempo on supurdari mark-A, challan form mark-B, supurdaginama mark-C, challan chit mark-D, sale certificate mark-E, bill mark-D, motor vehicle Form-F (mark-F), carbon copy of the bill mark-G, form-C (mark-H), form 65-A (mark J), affidavit mark-D, release order mark-K, affidavit of Siri Krishan Ex.PA, form No.22 (mark-L), recovery memo Ex.PW2/A from the case file. The recovery memo vide which the bills had been taken into possession and an affidavit of SDM, Rohtak has been proved by Ashok Kumar (PW5). Mahabir Singh Tehsildar (PW6) has stated that he had directed the accused to give specimen signatures during interrogation, but he refused to do so. Ram Phal Hooda (PW7) has proved the attestation on the affidavit Ex.PA done by him. Shyam Bihari (PW8) stamp vendor has deposed that the stamp paper Ex.PA was sold to one Siri Krishan by him regarding which entry in his register mark-A was made by him. Jagdish (PW9) has deposed that the tempo in question was purchased by him from one Prem resident of Kiloi and he had sold the same to Kartar Singh. He has further stated that he was never challaned. Inspector Ram Parkash (PW10) is the Investigating Officer. The case hinges on the documents as well as some admissions made by the accused. The accused was actually in possession of tempo bearing registration No.MH-14-0140 and he was challaned. The record clearly reveals that the registration book was actually in the name of Siri Krishan and he did not get the same transferred, rather when the tempo was challaned he while impersonating himself had moved an application before the court representing himself as Siri Krishan and obtained the order of supurdari, furnished supurdaginama signing himself as Siri Krishan and got the order for releasing the tempo, thereafter he moved the contempt application against the S.D.M. Rohtak representing himself as Siri Krishan. He had also purchased the stamp paper Ex.PA in the name of Siri Krishan. There is no denying a fact that the tempo was challaned when it was in possession of the petitioner, therefore, it appears that since the said tempo was in the name of Siri Krishan, therefore, in order to get this impounded Criminal Revision No. 442 of 2005 -4- vehicle released moved an application representing himself as Siri Krishan. Since Siri Krishan has completely denied having moved such application, then it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner as to who else applied for taking the tempo on supurdari. In the absence of such explanation, the petitioner being the beneficiary would be deemed to be responsible for forging the aforesaid documents. Though, the prosecution has led ample evidence to prove that it was the petitioner who had moved the application, yet, one other aspect which supports the case of the prosecution is that when the accused was taken before Mahabir Singh Tehsildar (PW6) for giving specimen signatures, then he refused to give the same as such inference could be drawn against him. As regards the argument with regard to the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. it may be observed that the documents were not forged when the same were in the custody of the court but the same were forged by the accused and after forging the same outside the court, as such provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. No other argument has been raised. The present case is clear cut example where the petitioner took the court for a ride impersonating himself as Siri Krishan and induced the court to pass the orders. Thus, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. December 24, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge