Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

sanctioning bogus claims. During investigation, it transpired that claim No. 350402/88/Misc./48/1514 for RS. 41,851/- in the name of M/s Ballomal Dharampal, Cloth Merchants, Katra Ghanaya, Amritsar, was recommended by Harbans Bahadur Mathur and approved by J.M. Khosla. It also transpired that Dharampal, Proprietor of the said firm did not lodge any claim and there was no fire in his shop on 12.12.87. Accused Paramjit Singh impersonated Dharampal, signed the stock statement dated 12.12.87, claim form, Panchnama and letter of intimation dated 12.12.87. Signatures of other persons on the Panchnama were also forged. Claim form was filled in by said Paramjit Singh. Anoop Singh Wadhwa, Surveyor, submitted a bogus survey report alongwith bogus and forged documents prepared by Paramjit Singh accused. Said Anoop Singh Wadhwa has died. A cheque of Rs.41,851/- dated 14.4.88 was deposited in the Indian Bank, Amritsar and this amount was later on withdrawn by Paramjit Singh accused through Criminal Revision No. 1391 of 2002 3 cheque, impersonating Dharmpal, Harbans Bahadur Mathur had processed the claim on the survey report and it was passed by J.M. Khosla. Insurance Cover Note No. 0171808 was issued by the Insurance Company in the name of M/s S.G. Enterprises, Purani Lakar Mandi, Amritsar, without any verification of the property. Accused Devinder Singh has submitted a letter that fire had broken out in that firm. He also prepared a stock statement dated 14.2.88. Anoop Singh Wadhwa submitted a false survey report for Rs.24839/- alongwith bogus documents prepared by Devinder Singh accused. Habans Bahadur Mathur processed and passed the claim. It was received by Divinder Singh vide cheque which was deposited in Account No. 851 in Indian Overseas Bank, Green Avenue, Amritsar. This amount was withdrawn by Devinder Singh vide four cheques No. 988351, 53,54 and

56. It transpired that firm M/s S.G.Enterprises did not exist. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Patiala for trial of the accused. The accused Paramjit Singh and Devinder Singh were charged under Sections 420, 419, 468,471 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Gurpreet Singh Bakshi, PW-2 Sushil Kumar, PW-3 S.K.Kapoor, PW-4 Balkrishan Sharma, PW-5 Dharampal, PW-6 Harish Chander, PW-7 Raman Kumar, PW-8 Pritam Singh, PW-9 Ramesh Chand, PW-10 Amarjit Singh, PW-11 Dr. B.A.Vaid, PW-12 Ranjit Singh HC, PW- 13 D.S.Mann DSP, PW-14 Inspector Deepak Kumar Kabi and closed its Criminal Revision No. 1391 of 2002 4 evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They pleaded innocence and false implication. They did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the both the Courts below. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since long and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Criminal Revision No. 1391 of 2002 5 Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioners have undergone 3 Months 27 days (each) of the actual sentence. The petitioners while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of both the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (3 Months and 27 days each). With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE January 27, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No