Pal Singh, JE-II, PSEB v. State of Punjab

Station Sunam, was directed to lodge the first information report, against Pal Singh, accused, who lodged the same. Thereafter, the investigation, was initiated. The forged Accounts Rendering Certificate, was taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused, was arrested, on 05.05.2000. Another case, vide FIR No. 34 dated 29.04.08 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was already registered against Pal Singh. After the completion of investigation, the accused, was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused, was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW1), Mukhtiar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2), Avtar Singh, Upper Division Clerk (PW3), Ghanshyam Dass, Clerk, Punjab State Electricity Board (PW4), Deepak Bhardwaj (PW5), Hardev Singh, Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sunam (PW6), Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Criminal Revision No. 1922 of 2009 4 Inspector (PW7), Buti Ram, Division Superintendent (PW8), Ashwani Kumar Jain, Upper Division Clerk (PW9), and Rajwinder Singh (PW10), Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that, he was subordinate to Hardev Singh, complainant, who tried to force him to collect bribe from domestic consumers, and tube-well consumers, but, he refused to do the illegal work, and due to the said grudge, he (Hardev Singh), implicated him, in a false case. The accused examined Raj Kumar, Divisional Superintendent, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sunam (DW1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence.

6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant-petitioner, which was partly accepted, as stated above.

8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the accused-petitioner.

9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. Criminal Revision No. 1922 of 2009 5

10. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration, that there was unexplained delay of 10 ½ months, in lodging the first information report. He further submitted that, during the course of inquiry, the department, had not given proper opportunity of hearing, to the petitioner. He further submitted that the signatures of the petitioner, were not proved, because no hand-writing expert, was examined, by the prosecution. He further submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. In the alternative, the Counsel for the petitioner, prayed for reduction in sentence.

11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, sufficient evidence, was led, by the prosecution, to prove, that the accused, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that mere delay, in lodging the first information report, did not affect the merits of the case. He further submitted that the judgements of conviction and the orders of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld.

12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, led by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the Criminal Revision No. 1922 of 2009 6 conclusion, that there was misreading or misappreciation of evidence or some material evidence, was ignored, by the Courts below. The Courts below, after due scrutiny of the evidence of Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW1, who took into possession the posting order of Pal Singh, accused-petitioner, list of articles worth Rs. 15,88,866/-, obtained by him (Pal Singh), and forged Accounts Rendering Certificate dated 20.02.98, Mukhtiar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW2, who arrested the accused-petitioner, Avtar Singh, Upper Division Clerk, PW3, who deposed, that Pal Singh, accused- petitioner, after forging Accounts Rendering Certificate, entered a wrong despatch No. 4680 dated 20.02.98. Ghanshyam Dass, Clerk, Punjab State Electricity Board, PW4, who deposed, with regard to the appointment of Pal Singh, accused-petitioner, Deepak Bhardwaj, PW5, who identified the signatures of Mr. G.S. Hara, Chief Engineer (Operation), Patiala, as he worked with him, Hardev Singh, Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, PW6, who remained posted, in that capacity, in Sunam, from 07/96 to 31.08.99, and deposed that Pal Singh, accused, who was posted, at Longowal Sub Division, never rendered the accounts, and joined, at Patiala, after preparing forged Accounts Rendering Certificate, took goods of Rs. 15/16 lacs, from the office, and signed the certificate, impersonating him, Buti Ram, Divisional Superintendent, PW8, who proved the signatures of Pal Singh, on P8/A, Ashwani Kumar Jain, Upper Division Clerk, PW9, who brought the original stock register, for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, Criminal Revision No. 1922 of 2009 7 and 1997-98, and deposed, that Pal Singh, accused, withdrew the articles worth Rs. 15,88,866/-, but did not render accounts, thereof, and Rajwinder Singh, Sub Inspector, PW10, rightly came to the conclusion, that the accused, forged the Accounts Rendering Certificate dated

22.02.98, and dishonestly used the same, as genuine, which he knew to be forged. The Courts below, thus, rightly came to the conclusion, that the accused-petitioner, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The delay in lodging the report was hardly of any consequence, as the case was largely based on the documentary evidence. The forged signatures of Hardev Singh, Executive Engineer by the petitioner on the Accounts Rendering Certificate, were duly proved. The judgements of conviction and the orders of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction.

13. Coming to the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, that the substantive sentence, awarded to the accused-petitioner, be suitably reduced, it may be stated here, that the trial Court, awarded substantive sentence to the accused-petitioner, for a period of two years each, for the offences, punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but the first Appellate Court, suitably reduced the same to one year, under each count, instead of two years. The first Appellate Court, has already taken a lenient view. The accused- petitioner, committed very heinous offences. Under these Criminal Revision No. 1922 of 2009 8 circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for further reduction of the substantive sentence, awarded to the accused- petitioner. The submission of the Counsel for the accused-petitioner, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. The judgement dated 17.07.09 of the Appellate Court, modifying the judgement dated

21.10.05 of the trial Court, is upheld. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement promptly.

12.01.2010 AMODH (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE