CIVIL APPEAL 210 of 2005 on 7 October 2004

Criminal Revision No.210 of 2005(O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH...

Criminal Revision No.210 of 2005(O&M)

Decided on : November 11, 2010

Sunder Lal

... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:None for the petitioner.(petition received through jail).

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate Generalfor the respondent – State of Haryana.

-A.N.JINDAL, J.

Sunder Lal, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `thepetitioner') has sent the present petition from jail challenging thecorrectness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 7.10.2004 passedby Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari) dismissing hisappeal against the judgment dated 7.4.2004 passed by Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Rewari convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/ss 465 & 471rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine ofIPCRs.2000/-, on each countIPCRs.2000/-, on each count U/ss 468 & 205rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine ofIPCRs.3000/-, on each countIPCRs.3000/-, on each count The instant case was registered on the basis of a complaintmade by Shri R.S.Virk, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, allegingthat one Abdul Kadar son of Issak Bhai was an accused in case FIR No.127dated 15.4.1994 registered at Police Station Dharuhera under Sections279/338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for brevity `the IPC').He was allowed bail on 18.4.1994 on executing bail bond in the sum ofRs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. Pursuant to this bailorder, an application was moved on behalf of the said accused Abdul Kadarunder the signature of Shri H.O.Maratha, Advocate for acceptance of bonds.Two persons claiming themselves to be Ajay Kumar son of Dalip Singh andSurender son of Dalip Singh residents of village Suthana, Police StationBawal furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each. Both of themwere identified by one Ram Sarup Sarpanch of village Ranoli Pranpura,Police Station Bawal. Both the sureties also furnished copy of Jamabandirelating to land which was mentioned in the bonds. However, on enquiry,the Magistrate found that the person posing himself as Ajay Kumar son ofDalip Singh in the surety bond furnished by him, was actually Bhag Singhson of Net Ram resident of village Suthana. His statement to this effectwas recorded by the Court, while the other person (surety) slipped out of theCourt. On further enquiry, Bhag Singh further disclosed that the person,who had fled away was his real brother, but he later on changed his standand denied any relationship with him. However, it came to light later onthat the person, who had slipped was the petitioner. The matter wasinvestigated, and ultimately on submission of a report under Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all the four accused were charged for the offences under Sections 465/468/471/205 and 120-B IPC, to whichthey pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examinedfive witnesses in all.

However, during trial, accused Bhag Singh absented himselfand he was ultimately declared proclaimed offender, while accused RamSarup and Ranbir had expired. Therefore, only the petitioner faced thecomplete trial.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his falseimplication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed.

Having scrutinised the impugned judgments, both the courtsbelow have observed that Bhag Singh and the petitioner impersonated Ajayand Surender and tried to get the accused released on the basis of forgedsurety bonds. No exception could be made to the view expressed by boththe courts below. The star witnesses of the prosecution are: Shiv Kumar(PW2), who was working as Clerk with Shri Hari Om Maratha, Advocate;and Shri R.S.Virk, who was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari atthe relevant time. Shri R.S.Virk, (PW4) has reiterated all the allegations asmade by him in his complaint (Ex.PW5/B). Shiv Kumar (PW2) hasdeposed that accused had posed themselves as Surender and Ajay Kumarand he had filled the bonds accordingly. He has further deposed that lateron, it was revealed that they had impersonated Ajay and Surender.

Even otherwise, the interference at the revisional stage couldbe made very sparingly and in cases where the judgment was palpably Criminal Revision No.210 of 2005(O&M) [4]

wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking intoconsideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trialmisconducted the proceedings. It has also been observed by the Apex Courtin case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri,AIR1999 SC 981 as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Courtand bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to theconclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court hasexceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisionaljurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the recordof any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to thecorrectness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence ororder. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of SupervisoryJurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correctingmiscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot beequated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it betreated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily,therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on thesame when the evidence has already been appreciated by theMagistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless anyglaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court whichwould otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”

Similar observations were made in caseJayakanth vs. Stateof Karnataka, 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it wasobserved that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparenton the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the orderof the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded bythe lower court.

Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of thepetitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld.

Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that theaccused-petitioner dared to play fraud in the temple of justice, therefore,keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence,the sentence awarded, appears to be in commensuration with the offencecommitted. Hence, the same also needs no interference.

Conclusion

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for compliance.

November 11, 2010`gian'

( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE