Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 September, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No. 1182 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1182 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 25,2012
Baldev Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation,Chandigarh
..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Sumeet Goel,Advocate for respondent-CBI.
Sabina, J.
Petitioner had faced the trial qua the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 (for short` the Act'), The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 27.2.2006/28.2.2006 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 419,420,467,471,120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment/order of his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh vide judgment dated CRR No. 1182 of 2011 (O&M) 2 25.8.2010. Hence, the present revision petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
The prosecution story,in brief, was that the petitioner- Baldev Singh and his co-accused had hatched a conspiracy to get their passports issued in fictitious names to leave the Country after committing crime. Petitioner-Baldev Singh got issued a passport No.X-652594 dated 3.1.1986 from the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh on the basis of application form No. 5/37976/85 dated 9.12.1985 mentioning therein false particulars and concealing the fact that he was already having the passport No. U 229375 dated 22.4.1983 which was valid upto 21.4.1988. Petitioner further got another passport issued in his name bearing No,.Y 153330 dated 29.8.1986 from the Regional Passport Office Chandigarh in fictitious name and address representing himself as Jasdev Raj on the basis of passport application No.5/27173/86 dated 20.8.1986. The fact that the petitioner was already having passport No. X652594 dated 3.1.1986 which was valid upto 2.1.1991 was also not disclosed in the application. Further, the allegation against the petitioner was that he got the passports issued in the names of Sukhdev Singh@ Sukha, Daljit Singh @ Bittu, Sukhwinder Singh @ Chhinda fraudulently in fictitious names from the Regional Passport Office Chandigarh in order to escape from India after the commission of crime.
Prosecution led its evidence to prove that the petitioner had got passport NO. Y153330 dated 29.8.1986 from the Regional Passport Office Chandigarh in fictitious name by posing himself as CRR No. 1182 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Jasdev Raj Jagde vide passport No.5/27173/86 dated 20.8.1986. The petitioner had given wrong particulars in the application form qua his date of birth and address and has failed to disclose that he was already having passport No. X-652594 dated 3.1.1986 valid upto 2.1.1991. Petitioner had also got issued passport No.C 302030 and had received the same on 21.3.1979. Petitioner had also got issued passport No. U 229375 and had received the same on 22.4.1983.
PW33 Rajinder Kumar in this regard deposed that he had filled in the form, on the instructions of Baldev Singh, who had introduced himself as Jasdev Raj Jagde.
PW31 Dheeru Ram deposed that Police verification with regard to RPO file No.5/27173/86 dated 20.8.1986 in the name of Jasdev Raj Jagde and RPO file No.5/26478/86 dated 12.8.1986 had neither been received in their Office nor had been dispatched from their Office. His statement was corroborated by PW44 Ram Rattan. During investigation, specimen handwriting/signatures of the petitioner were obtained and they were compared with the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of passport in the name of Jasdev Raj Jagde and it was opined by the expert that the signatures of the petitioner matched with the questioned signatures on the application form in the name of Jasdev Raj Jagde.
Prosecution also examined other witnesses in support of its case that the petitioner had obtained three passports in fictitious names although he was already having a valid passport at that time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of CRR No. 1182 of 2011 (O&M) 4 arguments, has failed to point out any misreading of the evidence by the Courts below. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 419,420,467,471,120-B IPC and 12 of the Act. It has also transpired, during the course of arguments, that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence by now. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is called for.
Dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge September 25, 2012 arya