Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehanga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2001
Author: Amar Dutt
Bench: Amar Dutt
ORDER Amar Dutt, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the judgment dated 18.8.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which his appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar on 17.11.1987 was dismissed.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner while posted as Incharge Malkhana, Amritsar prepared T.A. Bill from 2.8.1984 to 27.9.1984 for attending the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran and had appended the Court Attendance Certificates for 2.8.1984,13.8.1984, 17.8.1984,21.8.198, 18.9.1984,20.9.1984, 24.9.1984 and 27.9.1984. An anonymous complaint was received by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar to the effect that the TA bill prepared by the petitioner was false. Before payment of the bill could be disbursed, Shri Jaidev Suman, DSP, Head Quarters was deputed to enquire into the matter. On inquiry, he found that the Court Attendance Certificates attached with the TA bill dated 11.8.1984. 17.8.1984 and 24.9.1984 were correct but those dated 2.8.1984, 18.9.1984, 20.9.1984, 21.9.1984 and 27.9.1984 were forged. The reports on these bills were also wrong and the cases in which the certificates were issued were not fixed on the dates on which the certificates were forged. These bills had been get prepared from Baldev Raj No. 1631 for submitting to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police and on the basis of this inquiry, a formal FIR was recorded. On completion of the investigation, the challan was put in court and on the basis of the allegations, charge under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were framed against the petitioner.
3. Since the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence in support of its case. It examined 7 witnesses and thereafter statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing in the case against him. He examined three witnesses in defence.
4. After hearing the arguments, trial Court found him guilty under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default thereof six months RI under each count. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the revision.
5. Today no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite notice having been issued to him as per the direction issued on 27.7.2000. It seems that petitioner, who in 1982 had already put in 28 years of service, is no longer interested in this petition because he must have already retired from service.
6. With the help of the State counsel, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, who have concurrently found that the petitioner was responsible for forging the signatures of the presiding officer on the attendance certificate and consequently was guilty of the offences for which he had been charged. The plea against his conviction on the basis of non- compliance with the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. which was advanced by the petitioner, was rightly rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Arnritsar, it not being any part of the duty of the petitioner to forge the documents of the Presiding Officer before whom he was required to appear for giving evidence. Furthermore, at the time of the incident the petitioner was only serving as ASI and as such would be removable from service by the S.S.P. in this view of the matter also, the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. would not be attracted as the approval of the State Government was not required before he could be removed from service. Looked from any angle, there are no grounds for interfering with the order of conviction recorded against the petitioner. Another ground on which the relief has been sought in this case was the fact that the petitioner was not previous convict and taking into consideration the fact that the amountsought to be obtained by him on the basis of forged attendance certificates was not disbursed, it may be an appropriate case in which he should be released on probation. In the ground of revision, it is mentioned that petitioner at the time of conviction had already put in 28 years of service. After the conviction over 12 years had elapsed. Incident pertains to the year 1984. The petitioner must have retired. In these circumstances, especially when no other misconduct of the petitioner either prior to or after the incident has been brought on record, I feel that ends of justice would be sufficiently met if he is released on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He will also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of proceedings.
7. Disposed of accordingly.