Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-108-SB of 2000
Date of decision: 14.03.2011
Gurvinder Singh
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
****
PRESENT: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
****
JORA SINGH, J.
Gurvinder Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.2000, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mansa, in PC Act file No. 7 dated 8.9.1995, arising out of FIR No. 74 dated 26.11.1994, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at Police Station Boha.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 466/468/420 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:
CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -2-
1. Under Section 466 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. Under Section 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. Under Section 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. Under Section 13 (2) of the Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.2.1994, appellant was posted as Halqa Patwari Bareh. While serving as Halqa Patwari, appellant had forged the parat patwar of mutation No. 9984. Mutation No. 9984, was sanctioned by the appellant, by forging the signatures of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) qua the estate of Mohinder Singh. Appellant had demanded and accepted illegal CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -3- gratification from Ram Singh, for sanctioning the mutation by forging the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) Budhlada. During routine inspection of the documents by the then Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Budhlada, it came to his notice that order on the parat patwar qua mutation No. 9984 was forged by Gurvinder Singh, under the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. It had also come to his notice that under the order on parat patwar, Gurvinder Singh, Patwari, also forged the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Parat Sarkar, was separated from the parat patwar and was traced from the record but in the parat sarkar there was no order regarding sanctioning of mutation No. 9984 by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Mutation was sanctioned by the Halqa Patwari on 22.2.1994. Halqa Kanungo, had compared the entry on 23.2.1994. Order dated 31.1.1994, was forged by the appellant alleged to have been passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Mutations No. 9962 and 9974, were sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Disputed writing/signatures while sanctioning mutation No. 9984 were compared with the standard writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) and the same were not tallying with the standard signatures/writing of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar).
After inspection, the Collector-cum-SDM (Civil), Budhlada, sent report Ex. PE to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa. There was an enquiry and after enquiry case was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -4- Court.
Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Ram Singh, stated that his father Mohinder Singh, had executed a Will in his favour and on the basis of that Will, he wanted to get mutation sanctioned. Gurvinder Singh, was the Revenue Patwari of his village. He had demanded ` 3500/- to sanction mutation in his favour. In the presence of Jit Singh, ` 3500/- was paid to Gurvinder Singh. Entry was made by Gurvinder Singh, at Budhlada, regarding sanctioning of mutation.
PW-2 Jit Singh @ Gurjit Singh, stated that Ram Singh is from his village. After the death of his (Ram Singh) father namely Mohinder Singh, mutation was to be sanctioned. He along with Ram Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, had contacted the appellant to sanction mutation. Mutation was entered. ` 3500/- was paid by Ram Singh to the appellant in his presence. After receipt of ` 3500/- mutation was entered.
PW-3 Pirthi Chand, Director Social Welfare, Chandigarh, the then SDM, Budhlada stated that there was a complaint by Tehsildar and after that he had sent letter Ex. PA to SSP, Mansa.
PW-4 ASI Bant Singh, stated that 28.11.1994, he had arrested that accused. He had also recorded the statements of two witnesses. On 23.2.1995, Rajinder Parsad, Patwari, had produced CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -5- record before the DSP, which was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PB, attested by the witnesses.
PW-5 Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, stated that he remained posted as Tehsildar, Budhlada, from 9/93 to March 1994. Mutations No. 9962 and 9974, were sanctioned by him. Mutation No. 9984, as per parat patwar, was not sanctioned by him. Mutation was never presented before him for sanctioning purpose. Mutation was entered by Gurvinder Singh, Patwari. After statement of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, was partly recorded, then his further examination-in-chief was deferred but later on Sohan Singh, had died.
PW-6 Gurmel Singh, Kanungo, stated that as per the summoned record Gurvincer Singh, Patwari, was posted as Revenue Patwari of village Bareh after revocation of his suspension. After that Gurvinder Singh, was discharged from the Department. Ex. PE is the copy of the discharge order.
PW-7 Gurmit Singh, Assistant Office Kanungo, Budhlada, stated that parat sarkar of mutations No. 9962, 9974 and 9984, were produced before the police.
PW-8 ASI Gurjit Pal Singh, stated that on 26.11.1994, he was posted as SHO, P.S. Boha. On receipt of letter Ex. PA from SSP, Mansa, formal FIR was recorded.
PW-9 Makhan Singh, Clerk, DC Office Mansa, stated that he was Reader to K.K. Puri, Tehsildar, Budhlada and was not Reader to Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada.
PW-10 Constable Gurtej Singh, tendered his affidavit Ex. PH.
CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -6-
PW-11 Sh. G.C. Garg, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jallandhar, stated that on 29.11.1994, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa. Application Ex. PG, was moved by the police for taking the specimen hand-writing of the appellant. As per consent of the appellant, his specimen hand-writing was taken in the Court.
PW-12 ASI Rajinder Singh, tendered his affidavit Ex. PK. PW-13 Ram Kumar Jain, Senior Assistant, D.C. Office Mansa, stated that he was Reader to Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, from 8/93 to March 1994 and writing/signatures on parat patwar Ex. PO and mutation Nos. 9964, 9965 and 9966 are in the hands of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada.
PW-14 Dr. Seema Sharda, Scientific Officer documents, FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, stated that disputed writing/signatures of Sohan Singh on parat patwar were compared with the standard writing/signatures of Sohan Singh and after comparison of the same, it was found that the disputed writing/signatures were not tallying with the standard writing/signatures of Sohan Singh.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence evidence was led.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -7- aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that Mohinder Singh (deceased) was owning land and after his death mutation was to be sanctioned but no complaint by Ram Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, that he had paid ` 3500/- to the appellant to sanction mutation. For the first time Ram Singh, in Court stated that he had paid ` 3500/- to the appellant to sanction mutation but in cross-examination, he did not state a word that for sanctioning mutation he had paid ` 3500/- to the appellant. Ram Singh, admitted that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he did not state a word that there was demand of payment Ram Singh was not confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ajit Singh was with Ram Singh, at the time of payment but no complaint by Ajit Singh, that on receipt of ` 3500/- mutation was entered and sanctioned by the appellant. Sohan Singh, was serving as Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Mutation was sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Sohan Singh, appeared as PW-5 and stated that disputed mutation No. 9984, was not sanctioned by him. Parat sarkar was not on the file. On request of learned Public Prosecutor, for the State, his further examination-in-chief, was deferred but after that Sohan Singh, had died. So, statement of Sohan Singh, without cross-examination is not helpful to the prosecution to opine that disputed writing/signatures of mutation No. 9984, was not in the hand of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Science regarding CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -8- identification of writing/signatures is not a perfect science. Nothing on the file that record was in the custody of the appellant. When the record was not in the custody of the appellant then appellant is not liable for punishment under Sections 466/468/420 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Act. After conviction appellant has lost his service. Appellant effected compromise with the complainant.
Appellant remained in custody for about 23 days.
Occurrence was in the month of February, 1994. Requested to take lenient view. Affidavit of Ram Singh, was produced at the time of argument and the same was ordered to be taken on record.
Learned State counsel argued that appellant was serving as Revenue Patwari of village Bareh. Parat patwar was in the custody of the appellant. On the basis of Will, mutation was to be entered by the appellant. File was to be presented before the Sanctioning Authority. Appellant was to explain who had presented the file before the Sanctioning Authority. No doubt, no eye-witness but circumstantial evidence on the file shows that appellant is the main accused who on receipt of illegal gratification passed the order alleged to be written and signed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Writing/signatures of disputed mutation was not tallying with the standard writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. In case, mutation was sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, then order in parat patwar and parat sarkar should be in the same hand i.e. by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. No explanation from the side of the appellant, as to who had presented the record for sanctioning mutation and why someone else was allowed CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -9- to record the disputed order for sanctioning of mutation, if the same was not written by him.
Undisputedly, appellant was serving as Revenue Patwari of village Bareh, on 22.2.1994. Allegation of the prosecution is that mutation order No. 9984, was passed by the appellant alleged to be written and signed by Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Defence version of the appellant is that case is false. Now the question is whether disputed mutation No. 9984 was sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, on 22.2.1994.
Ram Singh, as PW-1 stated that after the death of his father-Mohinder Singh, mutation was to be entered and sanctioned on the basis of Will. He had contacted the appellant for this purpose. ` 3500/- was demanded. In the presence of Ajit Singh, he had paid ` 3500/- to the appellant. No doubt in cross-examination, Ram Singh, admitted that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he did not state a word that there was demand of payment but Ram Singh was not confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If Ram Singh, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not state a word before the Investigating Officer, that there was a demand of ` 3500/- and the same was paid then Ram Singh, should be confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to explain whether this fact recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was disclosed to the Investigating Officer or not and why this fact was not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Ajit Singh, PW-2 stated that he along with Ram Singh had CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -10- contacted the appellant to sanction mutation and to sanction mutation ` 3500/- was paid to the appellant. Entry was made. No suggestion to Ram Singh or Ajit Singh, that mutation was not entered by the appellant. Mohinder Singh, had died and after his death mutation was to be sanctioned. Appellant was the Revenue Patwari. He was to enter mutation in the register. After entering mutation, appellant was to present record before the Sanctioning authority. Pirthi Chand (PW-3) the then SDM, Budhlada, stated that disputed order regarding mutation was not passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. No suggestion to Prithi Chand the then SDM, Budhlada that order was passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar).
Sohan Singh, appeared as PW-5 then stated that mutations No. 9962 and 9974, were sanctioned by him. Disputed order is not in his hands and the order was not signed by him. At the time of statement of Sohan Singh, parat sarkar was not on the file. Parat patwar was in the custody of the appellant. Parat sarkar was in the office and for production of parat sarkar of mutation No. 9984 further examination-in-chief of Sohan Singh, was deffered. Unfortunately, after that Sohan Singh, had died so due to this reason he was not produced for further examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
PW-11 Sh. G.C. Garg, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, stated that on 29.11.1994, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa and on that day in view of the application of police, specimen writing/signatures of Gurvinder Singh-appellant were taken in his presence. No suggestion to Sh. G.C. Garg (PW-11) the then JMIC, CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -11- Mansa, that specimen writing/signatures of Gurvinder Singh-appellant, were not taken in Court in view of the application of the prosecution.
Disputed writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, were compared with his standard writing/signatures and after comparison expert opined that disputed writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, are not tallying with his standard writing/signatures. Expert had also compared that specimen hand-writings and standard writings of the appellant with the disputed writings Q1 and after comparison opined that the same are written by one and the same person. No doubt science regarding identification of writing/signatures is not a perfect science but appellant was the custodian of the record i.e. parat patwar. After entering the mutation, he was to present the record before the Sanctioning Authority. No case of the appellant that record was handed over to somebody else to present before the Sanctioning Authority, for sanctioning of mutation. When record was in the custody of the appellant then he was to explain who passed the disputed mutation order No. 9984. If disputed mutation order was passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), then standard signatures/writing of Sohan Singh, should have tallied with the disputed writing/signatures Q1. After the mutation was entered then mutation was to be sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Order of mutation was to be passed in parat sarkar. Entry was also to be made in parat patwar. Disputed writing/signatures of mutation No. 9984 was not found tallying with the entry of mutation in parat sarkar.
In 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 494, "Gurdip Singh Vs. State of Haryana", it was held that report of Finger Print Bureau that CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -12- signatures on the register were forged. Persons concerned, however, admitting the signatures. Conviction under Section 468 IPC set aside. Evidence of expert is to be treated like any other evidence. Evidence of expert requires corroboration.
In 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 817, "Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that evidence of finger print expert falls under the category of expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of finger print expert is not substantive evidence. Such evidence can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.
In the present case, statement of expert finds corroboration from the statements of Sohan Singh (PW-5) and Ram Kumar (PW-13) that mark-B, parat patwar or sarkar is not in the hands of Sohan Singh. Signatures on Mark-B are also not of Sohan Singh. Ram Kumar, remained as Reader with Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. He had seen him while writing and signing, so statement of expert finds corroboration from the statement of Reader of Sohan Singh.
As discussed earlier appellant was the Halqa Patwari of village Bareh at the relevant time. As per report of the expert disputed writing/signatures Q1, of mutation No. 9984, in the parat patwar, is in the hands of the appellant who was the custodian of the parat patwar. Mutation was entered by the appellant on 22.2.1994 and was compared on 23.2.1994 but disputed mutation order is dated 31.1.1994.
Sohan Singh, when appeared as PW-5 then stated that CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -13- disputed mutation order No. 9984 Q1, was not signed by him. Mutation was not presented before him for sanction. After the death of Sohan Singh, his statement as PW-5 supports the prosecution story to opine that disputed mutation No. 9984 was not in the hands of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. When mutation was entered on 22.2.1994 and compared on 23.2.1994, then no question of order dated 31.1.1994, to sanction the mutation. If the mutation was entered on 22.2.1994, then after that mutation was to be sanctioned. No idea of sanctioning of mutation on 31.1.1994, before entering of mutation on 22.2.1994. When the record was in the custody of the appellant then oral as well as circumstantial evidence shows that he had forged the hand-writing Q1 of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada, with date 31.1.1994, on the parat patwar of mutation No. 9984.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that after conviction appellant is out of service. Ram Singh, has effected compromise with the appellant and this fact is clear from the affidavit of Ram Singh. Appellant has already undergone 23 days out of the actual sentence. Occurrence was in the month of February, 1994, so lenient view be taken.
Submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant carries little weight. In the month of February, 1994, there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Disputed mutation order was in the hands of the appellant and after conviction appellant is out of service.
In 1991 (Suppl) SCC 510, "Balaram Swain Vs. State of CRA-S-108-SB of 2000 -14- Orrisa", case was under Sections 5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Trial and appeal continued for 23 years causing mental worry and incurring heavy expenditure. Sentence reduced to already undergone.
In the present case also appellant suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last about 16 years. As per custody certificate of the appellant, he remained in custody for about 23 days during the trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I take lenient view and direct the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year instead of 3 years under Sections 466/468/420 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Fine maintained.
For the reasons recorded above, instant appeal is dismissed with the abovesaid modification on the point of sentence.
Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by this Court, failing which concerned authority/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, to issue re-arrest warrants of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
March 14, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE