Tulsi Ram v. The State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24.01.08, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and, sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment, and the judgement dated 21.08.09, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide which, it partly accepted and partly Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2010 dismissed the appeal. 2

The facts, in brief, are that, the District Education Officer, Mansa, vide order dated 11.08.03, terminated the services of the accused (now revision-petitioner), who was working, as JBT Teacher, in Government Elementary School, Chainewala, Block Jhunir-II, District Mansa, as B.Ed degree/certificate of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, submitted by him, was found to be forged and fabricated document after enquiry. The reply, filed by the accused, was also found to be unsatisfactory. The Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, vide letter dated 29.09.03, directed the District Education Officer, Mansa, to get a case registered against the accused with the Superintendent of Police, Mansa. After obtaining opinion of the District Attorney, an FIR, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, was registered, against the accused. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

Charge under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Palwinder Singh, retired District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Mansa (PW1), Satpal Singh, Assistant, Office of the District Education Officer, Mansa (PW2), Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW3), Vinod Kumar Srivastav, Senior Assistant Bundelkhand Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2010 3 University, Jhansi (PW4), Jugraj Singh (PW5), and, Massa Singh (PW6). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

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 took admission, in Bundelkhand University with the help of Maya Shankar, Senior Clerk. It was further stated by him that roll number, was issued, to him, and he appeared, in B.Ed examination. It was further stated by him that the University, issued detail marks card and degree of B.Ed, on the basis whereof, he was employed, as Teacher. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same.

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.

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide judgement dated 21.08.09.

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

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and affirmed by the Appellate Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2010 4 Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same, as the Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Palwinder Singh, retired District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Mansa (PW1), Satpal Singh, Assistant, Office of the District Education Officer, Mansa (PW2), Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW3), Vinod Kumar Srivastav, Senior Assistant Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (PW4), Jugraj Singh (PW5), and, Massa Singh (PW6), were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same, was cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and sufficient to convict the accused. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the Courts below, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. The same, is liable to be upheld.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner, has already undergone rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 09 months, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner, has been facing the mental agony and physical pain since 26.11.04, the date, when the FIR, was registered, against him. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner, must have learnt a lesson by now. He further submitted that, thus, the sentence of the revision- petitioner, be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2010 5 revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. The ends of justice, in my considered opinion, shall be met, if the substantive sentence, awarded to the revision-petitioner, is reduced suitably. To this extent, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being correct, is accepted.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the Courts below, is maintained. The order of substantive sentence, is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 09 months each, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, instead of rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 01 year each, awarded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The sentence of fine and sentence, awarded in default of payment thereof, shall, however, remain unaltered. All the substantive sentences, shall run concurrently.

18.03.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE