Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2004
Date of Decision: March 06, 2009
Jaswant Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Jaswant Singh was convicted for an offence under
Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as `IPC’) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hoshiarpur vide judgment
dated 21.10.2000. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 420/120-B
IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section
468/120-B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
under Section 471/120-B IPC along with fine of Rs.120/- under each
Sections . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal and the same
was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court,
Hoshiarpur vide order dated 21.4.2004. Hence, the present revision
petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court
Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2004 2
in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-
” The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.8.1997, a
ruqa was sent by the D.S.P. (Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar) for
registration of case against Jaswant Singh accused who was
Inspector in the co-operative Socieities at Garhshankar and while
impersonating himself of a worker in a private factory earning
less than Rs.5000/- per annum in conspiracy with one of the
Senior Clerk of Backfinco, namely, Mann Singh, had applied for
loan of Rs.20,000/- for construction of house in the year 1992,
whereas actually he was serving as a Government employee with
a salary of Rs.2463/- per month. Mann Singh, Senior Clerk of
Backfinco wrongly certified to be a factory worker. The loan was
disbursed and the same was availed by the accused Jaswant Singh
in conspiracy with Mann Singh and later on the same was repaid.
Jaswant Singh had furnished wrongful information to the
Backfinco and had furnished false affidavit that he was earning
less than Rs.5000/- per year. On the basis of the ruqa, an FIR No.
76 dated 20.8.1997 under Sections 420/467/471/468/120-B of
IPC, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar was registered
against both the accused and after thorough and complete
investigation, the challan was presented in the trial Court by the
D.S.P. Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Hoshiarpur, who framed the
charge under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal
Code against both the accused, who did not plead guilty and
claimed trial.”
I have gone through the record of the case with the able
Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2004 3assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
Prosecution case against the petitioner is that the petitioner,
who by impersonating himself as a worker in a private factory earning less
than Rs.5000/- per annum in conspiracy with Senior Clerk to Backfinco,
had applied for a loan of Rs.20,000/- for construction of a house in the
year 1992, whereas, the petitioner was working as Inspector in Co-operative
Society at Gurgaon and was earning Rs.2463/- per month. Prosecution, in
order to prove its case, examined PW1 Achhar Singh Toor, Tehsildar cum
Executive Magistrate who has attested the affidavit of petitioner. PW2
Malkiat Singh deposed with regard to his taking in possession of loan
application of the petitioner along with affidavit and other record. PW4
Bakhtawar Singh, Accountant of Cooperative Society proved that the
petitioner was getting salary of Rs.2463/- from June 1992 onwards from
their Office. Exhibit PA is the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. A
perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner had stated in the affidavit that
the annual income of his family from all the sources was Rs.5000/-. On the
basis of the said affidavit, loan was advanced to the petitioner. The
petitioner,when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the close
of the prosecution evidence stated that he had returned the entire loan along
with interest. Even as per the prosecution case, the loan taken by the
petitioner was later on repaid. Thus, in these circumstances, Courts below
had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for an offence under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
Keeping in view the fact that the loan taken by the petitioner
was later on returned by him, it is a fit case where the sentence qua
imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.
Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2004 4
Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections
420/468/471/120-B IPC is maintained. However, his sentence qua
imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Sabina)
Judge
March 06, 2009
arya