State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kuldeep Singh on 15 September, 2020

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kuldeep Singh on 15 September, 2020

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA

                                         Cr. Revision No. 160 of 2020




                                                                                .

                                         Date of Decision: September 15, 2020

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                       ...Petitioner.





                                                  Versus
    Kuldeep Singh                                                                   ..Respondent.

    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the Appellant:                   Mr. Shiv    Pal   Manhans,  Additional
                                         Advocate General, for the petitioner,
                           r             through Video Conferencing.

    For the Respondent:                  Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with
                                         M/s Divya Raj Singh and Karan Veer
                                         Singh,   Advocates,    through   Video
                                         Conferencing.



    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.08.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), in Cr. Appeal No. 73/10 of 2017, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kuldeep Singh, whereby judgment of acquittal dated 24.06.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bilaspur H.P., in Case No.120-2 of 2005, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kuldeep Singh, has been affirmed.

2. Respondent was charged under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') for forging his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 20:18:23 :::HCHP 2

Matriculation Certificate for cheating and using the said document knowing it to be forged for getting job as a Male Health Worker and on 25.07.1997 respondent had cheated the .

Government of Himachal Pradesh by dishonestly inducing it to give him job as a Male Health Worker and giving him salary for the said post.

3. During trial, respondent has led defence evidence and has tendered copy of judgment dated 04.09.2006 in Civil Suit No.88/1 of 05/04, titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. Secretary Board of School Education Haryana and decree sheet therein as Exts.D-1 and D-2 and copy of judgment dated 09.09.2008, in Civil Appeal No.91 of 2006, titled as The Secretary, Board of School Education, Haryana vs. Kuldeep Singh and decree sheet therein as Exts. D-4 and D-5.

4. It has come on record that no evidence has been tendered by the prosecution to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent-accused.

5. Basis for filing challan and framing charge was letter No.1180/ver/Matriculation Examination dated 22.08.2003 issued and signed by Superintendent (Matric Exams) Board of School Education Haryana, whereby it was informed that Matriculation Certificate of respondent-Kuldeep Singh bearing Sl.No.0-104700 against Roll No.641436 was not issued by the Board of School Education Haryana. Vide judgment dated 04.09.2006 (Ex.D-1) referred above, suit of the respondent-plaintiff is decreed for the declaration to the effect that Matriculation Certificate under Sl.

::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 20:18:23 :::HCHP 3

No.0-104700, Roll No.641436 in respect of respondent-plaintiff Kuldeep Singh is valid and authentic and letter No.1180/ver/Matriculation Examination dated 22.08.2003 issued .

and signed by Superintendent (Matric Exams) on behalf of Secretary Board of School Education Haryana, is illegal, null and void. The said findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed in Appeal Vide judgment and decree Exts.D-4 and D-5.

6. Very basis of framing charge against the respondent-

accused was that his Matriculation Certificate has been forged by him. The said Matriculation Certificate has been declared to be valid by the Civil Court. For the record available on the file of the trial Court, the said judgment appears to have attained finality.

Nothing has been brought on record to rebut this factual position.

7. On perusal of the impugned judgments, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity, so as warranting interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

September 15, 2020 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 20:18:23 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court