CIVIL APPEAL 1390 of 2000 on 10 October 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.1390 of 2000Date of Decision 18.11.2010Jaswinder Singh

...... PetitionerVERSUS

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

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

Present:Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate,for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab,for the respondent-State.

*****

A.N.JINDAL, J:

Forgery in the passport and embarkation card have dragged theaccused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') to face the prosecution.On trial, vide judgment dated 26.07.2003, passed by Sub Divisional JudicialMagistrate, Ajnala, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- underSection 419 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and topay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 471 IPC. His appeal was alsodismissed on 04.07.2005.

The factual matrix of the case is that the accused was found inpossession of a British passport in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Jandubearing No.036211542 dated 23.06.1999, air ticket boarding pass andembarkation card with an intention to go Turkmenistan. When he appearedbefore Munish Anand, Immigration Officer, for clearance, then the latterwhile checking, noticed that the arrival stamp of Raja Sansi Airport,

Amritsar dated 10.10.2001 was forged and the signature of the accused onthe passport in question and the embarkation card also did not tally. Onquestioning, it came to light that the accused was originally JaswinderSingh. However, the passport, issued in the name of Kanwaljit SinghJandu, was bearing his photograph. He further disclosed that he hadprocured this passport through one Lakhi, travel agent, by paying a sum ofRs.2,00,000/-. He had also arranged passport, air ticket as well as ticket ofAmritsar. The Immigration Officer took the aforesaid documents intopossession vide a seizure memo alongwith other articles. He further sentruqa to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB was registeredagainst him and the investigation commenced. Completion of investigationwas followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

The accused was challaned under Sections 419, 420, 468 and471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examinedMunish Anand, Immigration Officer (PW1) and Asstt. Sub Inspector IqbalSingh (PW2).

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused deniedall the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case.

On trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.His appeal was also dismissed.

While opening the arguments, it has been contended byMr.Sandeep Punchhi, counsel for the petitioner-accused that in order toestablish the guilt against the accused, it was obligatory on the part of theprosecution to lead sufficient evidence for proving his complicity in thecommission of crime. Except Munish Anand (PW1) and ASI Iqbal Singh (PW2), no other witness has been examined. Even travel agent, throughwhom he has allegedly procured the passport and the embarkation card, hasnot been examined, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be extended to theaccused.

To the contrary, while taking me through the judgment and theevidence, recorded by the trial Court, learned State counsel has stressed thatthe conviction, recorded by both the Courts below, does not suggest anysuch interference.

Conclusion

Having scrutinized the record of the case, both the Courtsbelow have recorded the findings of fact that the accused while carrying apassport in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Jandu, over which his ownphotograph has been fixed, alongwith an embarkation card, went to theairport knowingfully well that he was not Kanwaljit Singh Jandu and hewith an intention to go abroad, made an effort to cheat the passportauthorities, presented the aforesaid documents alongwith air ticket. Boththe witnesses have also consistently stated that the passport, presented bythe accused, did not belong to him and his name was not Kanwaljit SinghJandu. They have also stated that the accused dishonestly and fraudulentlywith a motive to travel abroad tried to throw dust in the eyes of the airportauthorities. Munish Anand (PW1) reiterated the allegations, as mentionedby him in the application while testifying that the accused had revealed hisname as 'Jaswinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of village JodhaNagri Distt. Amritsar. During his investigation, he has further stated thatthe accused had admitted before him that that the passport was supplied tohim by one Lakhi, resident of Nakodar Road, near Marble shop, Jalandharon payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. This prosecution version stands supported by

the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also wherein he hasstated that his name is not Kanwaljit Singh Jandu but he is actuallyJaswinder Singh. Since the forged documents had come from thepossession of the accused and he, being beneficiary under the saiddocuments, had presented the same before Munish Anand (PW1), therefore,no further evidence was required to prove the offences for which he hasbeen charged. Without further delving deep into the evidence, it is observedthat both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in the rightperspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or manifest errorapparent on the record which may cause any prejudice to the accused, hasbeen pointed out. Re-appreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is notpermissible.

Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, isdismissed.

(A.N.Jindal) Judge