CR.R/461/2018 of STATE OF H.P Vs JAGDISH CHAND on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLACriminal Revision No. 461 of 2018 Date of Decision : December 31, 2018

_______State of H.P. ...petitionerVersus Jagdish Chand …respondent________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

__________________________________________________________For the petitioner :Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generalswith Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy AdvocateGeneral.For the respondent :Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.

__

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant Criminal Revision Petition filed underSections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has beenlaid to the order dated 24.5.2008, passed by learned Additional SessionsJudge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., modifying the judgment of convictiondated 27.2.2001, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Court No.III, Shimla, H.P., in New Case No. 94/2 of 97/89, (Case No. 72/2 of 92/89),whereby learned Trial Court while holding the respondent-accused(hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) guilty of having committedoffences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code,sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years1Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section468 of the Indian Penal Code; further sentenced the petitioner to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable underSection 471 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offencepunishable under Section 419 IPC.

2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that on the basis ofVigilance Inquiry, which came to be initiated on the complaint ofUnemployed J.Es’ Union, Hamirpur, an FIR No. 2/84, dated 26.7.1984,came to be lodged against the respondent-accused namely Jagdish Chand.In the aforesaid FIR, it was alleged that the name of the accused is in factBhram Dass Kashyap, who on the basis of forged documents, procured thejob of Junior Engineer. Complaint as referred to above, was addressed toAdditional Chief Engineer, Shimla in the year 1980, who subsequently sentthe same to the Superintending Engineer concerned for examination, whoafter finding the accused involved in the criminal offence, reported thematter to Director Vigilance HP, Shimla for necessary investigation, who inturn handed over the case to the D.I.G Vigilance HP Shimla. DIG gotregistered the inquiry as ACD/B-46/PWD-7/83 dated 16.6.1983 and sentthe same to the Dy.S.P. Vigilance Shimla for inquiry. The Inquiry Inspectorafter completion of inquiry, converted the same into regular case , on the basis of which FIR as detailed above, came to be registered against therespondent-accused at Police Station A.C.U, Shimla.

3. After completion of the investigation, police presented theChallan in the Competent Court of Law, who being satisfied that a primafacie case exists against the accused framed charges against him underSections 380, 419, 420,467, 468 and 471 of IPC, to which he pleaded notguilty and claimed trial. However, the fact remains that learned Courtbelow on the basis of evidence adduced on record by prosecution, heldrespondent-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable underSections 419, 468 and 471, whereas, acquitted him of the charges underSections 380, 420 and 467 of IPC and accordingly, awarded him sentenceas per description given hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaidjudgment of conviction recorded against him, accused preferred an appealin the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, who vide orderdated 24.5.2008, though upheld the conviction recorded by the learned trialCourt under Sections 419, 468 and 471 IPC, but modified the sentencefrom imprisonment for a period of 3 years to imprisonment till rising of theCourt.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaidmodification qua the sentence awarded by the learned Court below, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein forrestoration of judgment passed by learned trial Court after setting aside thejudgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Shimla in the impugned order,this Court is not persuaded to agree with the submissions made by Mr.Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that order passed bylearned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.Rather, this Court finds that learned Additional Sessions Judge havingtoken note of the fact that respondent-accused has already faced ordeal oftrial for almost 19 years, proceeded to modify the sentence. Record clearlyreveals that FIR in the case at hand came to be lodged against respondent-accused in the year 1984, whereafter, the matter remained underinvestigation for almost 5 years because challan on the basis of FIR lodgedat the behest of complainant, i.e., Dy. S.P. (Vigilance) came to be filed inthe year 1989. Learned Court below took almost 12 years to decide thecase and as such, this Court is in complete agreement with learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, who has recorded in the impugned order thatrespondent-accused has already suffered for more than 24 years.

7. Leaving everything aside, impugned order clearly revealsthat when the appeal having been filed by the accused came to be listedbefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge, laying therein challenge tothe judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, accusedadmitted his guilt and urged to the learned Court below to treat the appealas a mercy petition. Record reveals that respondent-accused also moved anapplication, seeking therein mercy from the Court and as such, this Courtsees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, whereby he has modified sentence awarded bythe learned trial Court. Since, respondent-accused has already suffered atrauma and agony of protracted trial, this Court does not see any reason tointerfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned AdditionalSessions Judge, which is accordingly upheld. The present petition fails andis dismissed accordingly.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

December 31, 2018(reena)