Criminal revision dismissing the petition as the High Court found no merit in the challenge to the conviction and sentence for impersonating a witness in court and cheating, holding identification and statements were valid.
Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence under Sections 419 and 193 IPC upheld.
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.
Criminal Revision No.1786 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1786 of 2003 Date of Decision 14.09.2010
Avtar Singh ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
A.N.JINDAL, J:
Avtar Singh, while appearing in the witness box, impersonated himself as Savinder Singh in the Court of Sh.B.S.Mangat, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 01.02.1996. On suspicion, the Court put him into dock. After conducting the inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C., a complaint was filed against Dilbagh Singh and Avtar Singh. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.04.2000, convicted both the accused under Sections 419 and 193 read with Section 420 IPC and sentenced them as under:-
| Name of accused | under Section | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Dilbagh Singh & Avtar Singh |
120B IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.200/- each. |
| Dilbagh Singh | 193/114 IPC 419/114 IPC |
Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.200/-. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.100/-. |
| Avtar Singh | 193 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.200/-. |
| Avtar Singh | 419 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.100/-. |
Criminal Revision No.1786 of 2003 2
Their appeal also failed.
Dilbagh Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, Avtar Singh has preferred this revision petition.
Summary of events, culminating into the present case is that on 01.02.1996, Sh.B.S.Mangat, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, was recording the preliminary evidence in a complaint Case No.111 of 29.07.1995. Savinder Singh was one of the witness listed in the complaint and he was to be examined as PW5. However, the petitioner appeared in the witness box, representing himself as Savinder Singh as PW5. After the statement was recorded, first of all he signed as Avtar Singh but thereafter he cancelled his signatures and signed as Savinder Singh which invited suspicion in the mind of the Presiding Officer. On inquiry, it came to light that Avtar Singh while impersonating himself as Savinder Singh deposed as such. On asking of the Court about the whereabouts of Savinder Singh, Dilbagh Singh complainant and Avtar Singh promised to bring Savinder Singh in the Court on the next date. However, he was never brought in the Court. Upon being questioned, the complainant admitted that the person, who was examined as PW5 was not Savinder Singh but was actually Avtar Singh. After recording the statements of Avtar Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Raj Pal Singh, Sh.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, who was representing the complainant, arrived at the conclusion that Avtar Singh had impersonated himself as Savinder Singh in the Court. On completion of inquiry, complaint Ex.PA was filed against Avtar Singh and Dilbagh Singh.
They were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
The trial court examined Sh.B.S.Mangat, the then Judicial
Criminal Revision No.1786 of 2003 3
Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar (PW1), who besides reiterating the facts as mentioned in the complaint, proved the statements of Avtar Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Rajpal Singh and Sarbajit Singh, Advocate as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, made by them earlier in the Court.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
The trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed. However, during the pendency of appeal Dilbagh Singh had expired. Arguments heard. Record perused.
The two major arguments regarding the identification of the accused and the admissibility statement of Avtar Singh, recorded in Court was challenged. It was urged that the said statement is in violation of the mandatory provisions of law as laid down under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Having considered these contentions, I do not find any merit in the same. The star witness in this case is Sh.B.S.Mangat, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, before whom Avtar Singh had appeared on behalf of Dilbagh Singh in the complaint filed by him. He having the occasion to see Avtar Singh appearing before him and his testimony that Avtar Singh firstly signed before him, stating that he was Avtar Singh and then after cancelling his signatures signed as Savinder Singh has duly identified the accused. This aspect alone was sufficient to hold that the person appearing before him was not Savinder Singh but Avtar Singh as Avtar Singh forgot signing as Savinder Singh but when it came to his mind that he was not appearing as Avtar Singh then he cut his signatures and signed as Savinder Singh. The statements of Dilbagh Singh as well as his counsel Sarabjit Singh duly
Criminal Revision No.1786 of 2003 4
establish that it was Avtar Singh who impersonated himself as Savinder Singh in the Court rather they had promised that they would bring Savinder Singh on the next date of hearing but Savinder Singh was not brought to the Court at all. These aforesaid facts do not require further proof of identity of the accused.
As regards the confessional statement made by the accused before the Court that he was Avtar Singh and not Savinder Singh and he may be spared and excused, it would be suffice to say that the said statement, having been made before any inquiry or trial, was admissible in evidence and the statement does not fall within the purview of Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was a voluntary statement made by the accused before the Presiding Officer and the same was without any undue inference or pressure. Rather they had promised that they would bring Savinder Singh on the next date of hearing. Under these circumstances, the statement, as recorded by Sh.B.S.Mangat, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, before any inquiry or trial was initiated, does not fall within the purview of Section 164 Cr.P.C. The times have come when the people have started cheating the Courts even and also slinging the mud over the courts without caring for the respect, prestige and dignity of the system. They have gone to the extent of impersonating for their ulterior motives and in order to grind their own axe. If such people are extended any leniency then the very prestige of the Courts would be damaged.
Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
14.09.2010 mamta-II
Avtar Singh
State of Punjab
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
