Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santokh Singh Alias Sukha vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012
Decided on : 06 .05.2013
Santokh Singh alias Sukha
... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva , Addl. AG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J.
Santokh Singh @ Sukha has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2009 passed by Shri Tarntarn Singh Bindra, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar convicting and sentencing the accused under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) was partly Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 2 accepted qua Tarsem Singh @ Makhan acquitted him from the charges levelled against him and remaining appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that a letter was received with the direction of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, for registration of FIR. During investigation of FIR No.95 of 1999 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 379, 411 of IPC case was registered at Police Station Nakodar on 23.4.1999 against Talwinder Singh regarding fake registration plate No.PB- 08-A-5764 and preparing forged RC. The said truck was taken into police possession in the above said FIR. During investigation, it was revealed from the record of DTO, Jalandhar that RC of No.PB-08-A5764 is pertaining to a scooter in the name of M/s Khurana Textiles. Santokh Singh son of Arjan Singh resident of Village Jandiala moved application on 5.7.1999 before the Duty Magistrate, Nakodar for the release of truck on superdari bearing No.PB-07-2217. Report was called from the Police Station and it was released on superdari in favour of Santokh Singh. Said Santokh Singh had placed on record Photostat copy of RC of truck No.PB07-2217. He furnished superdari bond and surety bond in the Court and accordingly the truck was ordered to be released in his favour. On verification of record from DTO, Hoshiarpur, it was revealed that vehicle bearing No.PB-07-2217 is a Scooter in the name of one Des Raj son of Bishan Dass, resident of Hoshiarpur. In this way, Santokh Singh superdar, Tarsem Singh surety and Iqbal Singh Lambardar committed fraud with the court of Duty Magistrate, Nakodar and on the basis of forged registration managed to take the vehicle on superdari. On this, inquiry was done. It was revealed that the Investigating Officer did not verify Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 3 from the office of DTI regarding correctness of RC of vehicle No.PB07- 2217. The legal opinion was taken from the District Attorney. Ultimately, on the basis of inquiry and on the directions of SSP, FIR was registered. The fake RC and vehicle were taken into police possession. Santokh Singh @ Sukha and Talwinder Singh were arrested on 16.6.2000 and Talwinder Singh was arrested on 05.09.2000. During inquiry, Iqbal Singh Lambardar was found to be innocent. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against Santokh Singh, Talwinder Singh and Tarsem Singh @ Makhan.
4. After complying with the necessary provisions copies of the documents were supplied to the accused and a charge against accused Santokh Singh@ Sukha, Talwinder Singh and Tarsem Singh @ Makhan under Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC was framed. The accused pleading not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined ASI Dalbir Singh as PW1, SI Pardeep Singh as PW2, SP Mandhir Singh Sandhu as PW3, SI Sadhu Singh as PW4, Sucha Singh as PW5, DTO R.L.Jassal as PW6, Kulwant Singh, Clerk DTO office as PW7 and thereafter evidence of the prosecution was closed by order.
6. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., so as to apprise them of all of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence led by the prosecution, to which they reiterated their innocence and pleaded their false implication.
7. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite availing Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 4 opportunities and closed their defence evidence.
7. After perusal of the evidence, led before it and appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentence them as under :--
U/s 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
U/s 465 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
U/s 467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
U/s 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
U/s 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month.
All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, the appellants-accused have preferred appeal before Appellate Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar partly accepted the appeal qua Tarsem Singh @ Makhan acquitting him from the charges levelled against him and remaining appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.08.2012.
9. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 5 the present revision petition has been directed by the accused- petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has prayed for grant of concession of probation by relying upon authority Kulwant Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (2) CLJ (Criminal ) page 06. It is submitted that petitioner is facing trial since the year 2000. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is on bail for the last more than seven months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon authorities Sher Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab reported in 2003 (2) AICLR page 670 and State of U.P. vs. Ranjit Singh reported in 1999 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) page 40 and on the strength of the same prayer has been made for grant of concession of probation.
11. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced forged registration certificates in the court for releasing the truck on sapurdari. The petitioner is not entitled to concession of probation or for reduction of sentence.
12. I have considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case.
13. So far as the prayer for grant of probation on the facts of the present case is concerned, in my view that prayer cannot be allowed. Authority Kulwant Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case as facts of both the cases are not identical. It is not clear as to under what Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 6 circumstances for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of the IPC , the concession of probation was granted.
14. So far as authority Sher Singh and others' case (supra) is concerned, in that case, the concession of probation was granted as the matter was pending for the last more then 20 years and the petitioners in that case were old persons.
15. The facts in authority State of U.P. vs. Ranjit Singh's case (supra) are also distinguishable as in that case, matter relates to more than 27 years. So, all these authorities relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner.
16. The proved allegation against the petitioner is that he got on sapurdari by producing fake registration certificate of truck No. PB-07- 2217. The petitioner has been awarded the sentence of three years under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC, but on the facts and circumstances of the case, the same stands reduced to period of one and half yeas instead of three years awarded by the trial Court. However, the sentence of fine imposed under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and the sentence imposed under Section 465 and 471 stands affirmed. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention during investigation, trial and after conviction of the accused-petitioner is ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment as per provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
17. With the reduction in sentence as indicated above, the revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.
Criminal Revision No. 3844 of 2012 7
18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. PURI )
May 06 , 2013 JUDGE
sv