Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Jagdish Chand on 31 December, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2018
Date of Decision : December 31, 2018
.
_______
State of H.P. ...petitioner
Versus
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 Generals
with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy Advocate
r General.
For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
__
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been laid to the order dated 24.5.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., modifying the judgment of conviction dated 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 committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:28 :::HCHP 2and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code; further sentenced the petitioner to undergo .
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC.
2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that on the basis of Vigilance Inquiry, which came to be initiated on the complaint of Unemployed 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 fact Bhram Dass Kashyap, who on the basis of forged documents, procured the job of Junior Engineer. Complaint as referred to above, was addressed to Additional Chief Engineer, Shimla in the year 1980, who subsequently sent the same to the Superintending Engineer concerned for examination, who after finding the accused involved in the criminal offence, reported the matter to Director Vigilance HP, Shimla for necessary investigation, who in turn handed over the case to the D.I.G Vigilance HP Shimla. DIG got registered the inquiry as ACD/B-46/PWD-7/83 dated 16.6.1983 and sent the same to the Dy.S.P. Vigilance Shimla for inquiry. The Inquiry Inspector after completion of inquiry, converted the same into regular case , on the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:28 :::HCHP 3 basis of which FIR as detailed above, came to be registered against the respondent-accused at Police Station A.C.U, Shimla.
.
3. After completion of the investigation, police presented the Challan in the Competent Court of Law, who being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused framed charges against him under Sections 380, 419, 420,467, 468 and 471 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the fact remains that learned Court below on the basis of evidence adduced on record by prosecution, held respondent-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471, whereas, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 380, 420 and 467 of IPC and accordingly, awarded him sentence as per description given hereinabove.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded against him, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, who vide order dated 24.5.2008, though upheld the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Sections 419, 468 and 471 IPC, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for a period of 3 years to imprisonment till rising of the Court.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid modification qua the sentence awarded by the learned Court below, State ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:28 :::HCHP 4 has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of judgment passed by learned trial Court after setting aside the .
judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Additional 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 by learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Rather, this Court finds that learned Additional Sessions Judge having token note of the fact that respondent-accused has already faced ordeal of trial for almost 19 years, proceeded to modify the sentence. Record clearly reveals that FIR in the case at hand came to be lodged against respondent-
accused in the year 1984, whereafter, the matter remained under investigation for almost 5 years because challan on the basis of FIR lodged at the behest of complainant, i.e., Dy. S.P. (Vigilance) came to be filed in the year 1989. Learned Court below took almost 12 years to decide the case and as such, this Court is in complete agreement with learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has recorded in the impugned order that respondent-accused has already suffered for more than 24 years.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:28 :::HCHP 57. Leaving everything aside, impugned order clearly reveals that when the appeal having been filed by the accused came to be listed .
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, laying therein challenge to the judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, accused admitted his guilt and urged to the learned Court below to treat the appeal as a mercy petition. Record reveals that respondent-accused also moved an application, seeking therein mercy from the Court and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has modified sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Since, respondent-accused has already suffered a trauma and agony of protracted trial, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is accordingly upheld. The present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 31, 2018 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:28 :::HCHP