Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2010
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Criminal Revision No.455 of 2005
-
1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 08.12.2010
(i) Criminal Revision No.455 of 2005
Dharamvir
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) Crl. Revision No.520 of 2005
Ram Karan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.455 of 2005.
Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.520 of 2005
Mr. J.S. Rattu, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana.
****
A.N. Jindal, J.
Ram Karan and Dharamvir both the accused/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') by way of two petitions No.455 of 2005 and No.520 of 2005, have challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, who while dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 23.01.2004 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, confirmed the Criminal Revision No.455 of 2005
-
2- sentence awarded against them for the offences under Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts of the case are that the case FIR No.273 under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 (for brevity the 'Act'), was pending against Ram Karan petitioner wherein on 23.04.1997, he had moved an application for releasing of scooter bearing Registration No.HRV-131 on superdari. On 29.04.1997 the accused furnished the surety bonds but he furnished superdari nama while representing himself as Jagdish Chand, he was identified as such by Dharambir Lambardar. The fact with regard to impersonation was brought to the notice of Court by Sh. Roshan Lal, Advocate. On enquiry as held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari forthwith, the said Ram Karan admitted that he was Ram Karan and not Jagdish Chand (the owner as recorded in the registration book). On this, a complaint Exhibit PB was sent to the police station, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered and the case was investigated. After the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted, both the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 419 and 420 IPC read with Section 511 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication.
The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined ASI Phool Singh (PW-1), Sh. N.K. Biriwal, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari (PW-2) and Sh. Roshan Lal Advocate (PW-3). There are two star witnesses to prove the prosecution case. Out of them Sh. Roshan Lal, Advocate PW-3 has not supported.
Now, I am left with the statement of Sh. N.K. Biriwal, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Before I set to analyze his statement, I need to Criminal Revision No.455 of 2005
-
3- refer three documents i.e. first is the application dated 23.04.1997 given by Ram Karan in the Court for releasing the scooter on superdari and second is the surety bond dated 29.04.1997 and third is Superdari Nama of even date.
No dispute has been raised regarding the application dated 23.04.1997 and the surety bond dated 29.04.1997 but dispute is that the accused Ram Karan while impersonating as Jagdish Chand furnished the superdari nama, whereas, actually, he was Ram Karan.
The superdari nama has not been proved by any of the witnesses. Neither Roshan Lal nor any official of the Court has stated that the superdari nama was signed by Ram Karan representing himself as Jagdish Chand. Sh. N.K. Biriwal, ACJM, Rewari has nowhere stated that Ram Karan had signed the superdari nama Exhibit PB in his presence. No hand-writing expert was examined in order to prove that the superdari nama Exhibit PB was actually signed by Ram Karan and at that time he represented himself as Jagdish Chand. Sh. N.K. Biriwal, ACJM, Rewari has deposed in the Court to the effect that Sh. Roshan Lal, Advocate had brought to his notice that Ram Karan had furnished the superdari nama while representing himself as Jagdish Chand. But Sh. Roshan Lal, Advocate has not stated so while appearing in the witness box. In these circumstances how it could be said that Ram Karan represented himself as Jagdish Chand in the Court. Sh. N.K. Biriwal, ACJM, Rewari has not stated at any point of time that Ram Karan represented himself as Jagdish Chand. Had Sh. Roshan Lal made the statement in the Court disclosing that it was Ram Karan who had signed in place of Jagdish Chand and he represented himself as Jagdish Chand in the Court then certainly Ram Karan could be indicted for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. But the statement of Sh. N.K. Biriwal is not sufficient to hold that:
Criminal Revision No.455 of 2005
-
4-
i) Ram Karan had impersonated himself as Jagdish Chand before him;
ii) he signed while representing himself as Jagdish Chand on superdari nama Exhibit PB;
iii) no such admission as made by Ram Karan that he had signed the superdari nama, has been placed or proved on record.
When once it is not proved that Ram Karan had impersonated in the Court as Jagdish Chand and signed as such in the Court, then the accused Dharamvir also cannot be convicted for identifying a wrong person. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid circumstances of the case and the impugned judgment appears to have been passed on mis-appreciation and mis-reading of the evidence.
The interference in the impugned judgment has become inevitable. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept these petitions; upset the view formed by the Courts below; acquit the accused of the charges and direct them to be set at liberty. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. Fine, if deposited be refunded.
08.12.2010 (A.N. JINDAL) vcgarg JUDGE