Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora vs State Of Punjab

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station, City Phagwara. On 23.02.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., he along with some others committed trespass in the premises of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., and committed robbery of Indian Currency of Rs.6,64,576/- and foreign currency of value of Rs.13,44,500/-. PW-1 Sukhraj Singh (complainant) was wrongfully confined, showing recovery of Rs.10,09,076/- of Indian and Foreign exchange recovered from him, and FIR No. 19 dated 23.02.2002 was lodged against him relating to offence punishable under Sections 411 and 414 IPC and under Section 3(B) and 3(C) of Foreign Exchange Management Act at the police station. On investigation, the said case filed against PW 1 Sukhraj Singh, Director of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., was found to be false, and the FIR was cancelled. Complainant (PW1) Sukhraj Singh lodged a complaint with Deputy Inspector General of Police (Internal Vigilance Cell), Chandigarh, alleging as to the manner robbery was committed from premises of the above firm, and the amount of Indian and foreign currency, as mentioned above, was taken away even though the aforesaid firm M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd. had a licence from Reserve Bank of India valid up to 28.05.2002 for sale and purchase of foreign currency. On the complaint of PW 1 Sukhraj Singh, enquiry was conducted, and thereafter First Information Report No. 147 (Ex.PB/1) was registered on 10.10.2002 against the appellant Sanjiv Kumar and he was arrested on 22.02.2003. After investigation, sanction (Ex.PF) for prosecution was sought and chargesheet was filed against him in respect of offences punishable under Sections 450,395 and 342 IPC.

4. It appears that necessary copies were given to the accused and the case was committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 450, 395 and 342 IPC against accused Sanjiv Kumar, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On this, prosecution got examined, PW-1 Sukhraj Singh (Complainant), PW-2 Satwant Singh (neighbouring shopkeeper), PW-3 Gurdayal Singh, who proved sanction of prosecution, PW-4 Rajinder Singh, PW-5 Kartar Singh, PW-6 Gurwinder Singh, PW-7 Darshan Lal (Accountant of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd.), PW-8 Surinder Singh Atwal, (Superintendent of Police, who enquired into the matter on the complaint of Sukhraj Singh), and PW-9 S.I. Amrik Singh (who inspected the crime).

6. In reply to oral and documentary evidence put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Sanjiv Kumar pleaded that he acted under instructions of Station House Officer Inspector Gurmej Singh. He pleaded that at 'naka' on Hoshiyarpur Road, Phagwara, the team of Police men intercepted a Maruti Car from which Indian and foreign currency was recovered, on the basis of which FIR No. 19 dated 23.2.2002 was lodged against Sukhraj Singh, who was arrested for said offence. Appellant Sanjiv Kumar also took the plea that Additional Director General of Police, Punjab, was inimical against him. In defence, the accused got examined DW-1 Inspector Gurmej Singh, DW-2 SSP Arun Pal, and DW-3 Reader Jaswant Singh.

7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the First Information Report No. 19 dated 23.02.2002 which was got lodged, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 411 and 414 I.P.C and Section 3(B) and 3(C) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, against Sukhraj Singh, at the instance of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, was false. The trial court believed the statement of prosecution witnesses and found that the offence for which accused Sanjiv Kumar was charged, stood proved. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2005/11.2.2005 passed in sessions case no. 18 of 2003.

13. Having re-assessed the entire evidence on record, we do not find any illegality committed by the trial court in convicting the accused Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450 and 342 IPC, which is rightly affirmed, with modification of sentence, by the High Court.

16. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

March 19, 2015.