IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Revision Petition No.1091 of 1998
Date of Decision: 1.9.2009
Surjit Kumar and others.
....... Petitioner no.1 through Shri.
Ranjit Saini, Advocate.
Respondent no.2 reported to
be dead.
Respondent nos. 3 & 4
through Shri K.K.Aggarwal,
Senior Advocate with Shri
Rajbir Singh, Advocate.
Versus
State of Punjab and another.
....... Respondent no.1 through
Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant
Advocate General.
Respondent no.2 through Shri
A.S.Kalra, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether 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?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This revision petition is directed against judgment dated
8.10.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter
described as `the appellate Court’) vide which the appeal of the petitioners
preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.10.1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur
Crl.Revision Petition No.1091 of 1998
-2-
….
(referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court’) was dismissed.
Respondent no.2 had filed a criminal complaint against the
petitioners under Section 465, 467, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C. alleging that
they had forged and fabricated an agreement to sell dated 9.4.1992
regarding 400 trees which belonged to him.
Petitioner-Surjit Kumar was said to have impersonated as
complainant-Sudagar Singh at the time of execution of the document while
petitioner nos. 2 & 3 attested the same and petitioner no.4-Muni Lal Kapila
scribed it.
The trial Court found all the petitioners guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 467 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and
petitioner-Surjit Kumar under Section 471 of the I.P.C. as well and
accordingly convicted and sentenced them as under:
“1.For offence under Section 467/34 To undergo rigorous
of the I.P.C. imprisonment for three
years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each and in
default of payment of
fine, to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment
for six months each.
2. Petitioner-Surjit Kumar To undergo rigorous
for offence under Section 471 imprisonment for three
of the I.P.C. years and to pay a fine of
Crl.Revision Petition No.1091 of 1998
-3-
....
Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, to
undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for six
months.
The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal, whereas the
complainant filed a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence, both
of them were dismissed by the appellate Court vide the impugned judgment,
resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition.
At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners have faced the agony of the criminal proceedings since 1992
and that in the ultimate analysis of the facts, no loss was caused to
respondent no.2-complainant. He further contended that keeping in view
these peculiar facts, the matter may be considered leniently in so far as the
sentence part is concerned.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the
learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant contended that there is
sufficient evidence on record to warrant conviction of the petitioners and,
therefore, no leniency ought to be shown to them.
I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions.
A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that there is
sufficient evidence on record to establish the guilt of the petitioners. The
expert witnesses fully proved the forgery. The role of each of the petitioners
Crl.Revision Petition No.1091 of 1998
-4-
….
in conspiring with each other to fabricate the document has also been
proved. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment does not warrant
any interference.
However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took
place in the year 1992 and the petitioners have faced the agony of criminal
prosecution for the last about 17 years and also the fact that they will be
fairly advanced in age by now as petitioner no.4 was 74 years old while
petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 40, 46 and 50 years of age at that time and
petitioner no.2 is reported to have since died, no fruitful purpose would be
served by sending them to jail at this stage and it will be in the fitness of
things if the sentence awarded to them is reduced to that of already
undergone and they are made to compensate the complainant. For this view,
I draw support from the ratio of the law laid down in Kharak Singh and
others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 766 (P&H); Sadhu
Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 108 (P&H); Moti
Sagar and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(3) RCR
(Criminal) 519 (P&H) and Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2)
RCR (Criminal) 212 (P&H) and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in
Radhey Shyam Versus State of U.P., 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 217.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-
1. The conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the trial
Court and upheld by the appellate Court is maintained.
2. The sentence awarded to them is reduced to that of already
Crl.Revision Petition No.1091 of 1998-5-
….
undergone and petitioner no.1 is directed to pay a suma of
Rs.30,000/-, whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 4 shall pay a sum,
of Rs.10,000/- each, as compensation to the complainant.
Since petitioner no.2 is reported to have died, the amount of
compensation shall be paid by his legal heirs.
3. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioners
in the trial Court within a period of three months from today
and on their doing so, the same shall be disbursed to the
complainant after due notice and verification.
4. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the above amounts
within the stipulated period, the sentence as awarded to them
by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court shall
stand revived and they shall be required to serve the
remaining sentence in accordance with law.
September 01,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge