High Court upheld convictions for forgery and cheating but reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already suffered, citing ended justice and lack of actual loss caused.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine remains unaltered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : May 14, 2009
Surinder Singh .......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
PRESENT: Mr. N.S. Baidwan, Advocate for Mr. T.S. Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ambika Luthra, A.A.G., Punjab for the State.
Criminal Revision No.1041 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : May 14, 2009
Gurjit Singh .......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
PRESENT: Mr. Daldeep Singh Sukarchakia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ambika Luthra, A.A.G., Punjab for the State.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This judgment would dispose off two Criminal Revisions bearing Nos. 785 of 2002 and 1041 of 2002, as these have arisen out of the same judgment. The facts of the present case are being taken from Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002.
The brief facts of the present case are that two boys by the name of Jit Singh son of Natha Singh and Gurjeet Singh son of Natha Singh belonged to the same village and were class fellows in Government
Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002
-2-
High School, Lehra Mohabbat. Jit Singh passed the matriculation in the year 1989 whereas Gurjeet Singh could not pass the matriculation. Jit Singh is doing agricultural work in his village. Gurjeet Singh obtained Character Certificate of Jit Singh in September 1992 from the school. Having collected the character certificate, Gurjeet Singh applied to the Punjab School Education Board in the name of Jit Singh saying that his original certificates have been lost and he may be issued as duplicate certificates. The Board issued him duplicate certificates. Armed with duplicate certificate, he is said to have obtained admission in I.T.I. Bathinda for a certificate course of Tractor Mechanic. On coming to know of it, Jit Singh moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda saying that Gurjeet Singh posing as Jit Singh has obtained duplicate certificates from the Board of Jit Singh and then posing as Jit Singh he has sought admission into certificate course in Diploma of Tractor Mechanic. He further stated that none of his original certificates are lost and he finally requested the police to get the duplicate certificates returned from Gurjeet Singh and action may be taken against Gurjeet Singh. After investigation, challan was filed against Gurjit Singh, Harpal Singh and Surinder Singh. Thereafter, charges were framed against all the three accused and the following findings were recorded by the trial Court :-
“ So, all the facts and circumstances of the case amply go to reveal that all the three accused in active criminal conspiracy and in active connivance with each other with full awareness of the facts forged the documents and accused Gurjit Singh out of sheer frustration of having not been able to qualify matriculation examination went astray and he tried to get
Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002
-3-
illegal benefit of resemblance of the father's name of PW-4 Jit singh and also resemblance of Jit Singh himself since, Jit Singh son of Natha Singh of the same village and had appeared in the same class in the same sessions that is matriculation examination in the same school, therefore, the accused Gurjit Singh was attracted or illegally lured to take benefit of all these circumstances and the accused Surinder Singh even being responsible person and belonging to Vohra Degree College acted in criminal conspiracy with accused Gurjit Singh, the accused Harpal Singh also lateron fell prey to the evil designs of accused Gurjit Singh and he also ultimately entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Gurjit Singh and he even went to the extend of wrongful identifying Gurjit Singh as Jit Singh and even, he took accused Gurjit Singh to the Principla Harnek Singh and he tried to get the benefit of being old student of the college. The accused Harpal Singh knew that the Principal being known to him would easily attest the form, so by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the accused Harpal Singh did not actively participated in the offence.”
The present revision is against the judgment dated 15-04-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, convicting the appellant and his other co-acused was upheld. The three accused were convicted and sentenced as under :-
| “ 1. Gurjit Singh | R.I. for two years and to pay a |
|---|---|
| u/s 468 IPC | fine of Rs.500/- and in default |
| of payment of fine to undergo further R.I for three months. |
|
| u/s 471 IPC | R.I. for two years. |
-4-
Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002
| 2.Surinder Singh u/s 468-120-B IPC |
R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I for three months. |
|---|---|
| u/s 471 IPC | R.I for two years. |
| 3. Harpal Singh u/s 468-120-B IPC |
R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. |
| u/s 471 IPC | R.I. for two years.” |
After having perused the two judgments passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 15-04-2002 and that of the trial Court dated 25-02-2000 and after having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the accused-Gurjit Singh has committed forgery and used the duplicate certificate for the purpose of cheating in active connivance with other accused Harpal Singh and Surinder Singh Virdi, who entered into criminal conspiracy with each other to commit the offence of forgery. The facts, circumstances and evidence reveal that all the three accused entered into criminal conspiracy in active connivance with each other and are guilty of the said offence. Nothing has been pointed out to show or convince the Court that the findings arrived at are in any way incorrect. The conviction of the appellants, is therefore, upheld.
Learned counsel, however, made submission on the quantum of punishment which they pleaded was on higher side, seeing the nature of offence, their age and the fact that no loss was caused to either the State or any individual. There is merit in the submissions. The appellant has already undergone sentence of about five months. The offence is related to the year 1994. More than 15 years have passed. The conviction has, in any case, resulted in loss of his future prospects. To go back to jail after a lapse of 15 years is not justified. While praying for reducing the
Criminal Revision No.785 of 2002
-5-
sentence as undergone, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as Beena Philipose and another vs. State of Kerala 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 303, wherein, the sentence was reduced to already undergone and the accused therein had also undergone only 70 days. The petitioner-Gurjit Singh was only a student at that time. He too has undergone about five months. The conviction would, in any case, stand in the way of his career. In the process, they have done no harm to anyone except themselves.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed, however, shall remain unaltered. The Criminal Revision is disposed off with the above
modification.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
May 14, 2009 gurpreet
Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of punishment is on the higher side given the age of the appellants and lack of loss caused.
Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Beena Philipose and another vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶35
Beena Philipose and another vs. State of Kerala 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 303
Surinder Singh
Gurjit Singh
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
