State of Punjab. vs Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate

bearing FIR No. 232 dated 29.10.1995, under Section 304-A IPC, P.S. Sadar, titled as State vs. Manjit Singh was pending in that Court for 06.10.1998, for prosecution evidence. When the case was called for hearing, a person appeared, before the trial Court, representing himself as Manjit Singh, though he was not actual Manjit Singh. Immediately, an application was moved by Jaswinder Singh that the person, who had represented himself, in the trial Court, as Manjit Singh, was actually Surjit Singh. It was also alleged in the application, that Manjit Singh had left for foreign Country. When the person, who represented himself, as Manjit Singh, was questioned, by the trial Court, regarding his identity, firstly he alleged himself as Manjit Singh, but lateron, he admitted that he was Surjit Singh. His statement was recorded and registration of the case, was recommended. The accused was handed over to the then Naib Court of Crl. Revision. No. 671 of 2010 3 Police Station Division No.4 and he was arrested. The investigation was conducted. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 419 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jaswinder Singh, complainant, (PW-1), who deposed that Manjit Singh and Surjit Singh were known to him. He further stated that during the course of pendency of the case, relating to FIR No.232 dated 29.10.1995 under Section 304-A IPC, P.S. Sadar, Manjit Singh left for foreign Country and Surjit Singh,accused, impersonated himself as Manjit Singh. He also proved his application. 4-A. Sucha Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-2), deposed that on receipt of the application, FIR was registered. 4-B. Mrs. Rekha Mittal, (PW-3) stated that she was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in October, 1998, at Jalandhar. She further deposed that case bearing FIR No. 232 dated 29.10.1995 under Section 304-A IPC, Crl. Revision. No. 671 of 2010 4 Police Station Sadar was pending, in her Court. It was fixed for 6.10.1998 for prosecution evidence. She further deposed on 06.10.1998, a person, appeared before the Court, alleging himself as Manjit Singh, but, in fact, he was Surjit Singh. She further stated that Surjit Singh impersonated himself as Manjit Singh.She also deposed that Jaswinder Singh, complainant, moved an application. She also stated that statement Ex.PB of the impersonator was recorded. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its 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 never impersonated as Manjit Singh. It was further stated by him that Jaswinder Singh moved a false complaint, due to the personal differences and land dispute. He further stated that when the case was called, he appeared before the trial Court to inform that Manjit Singh, had left for foreign Country, but no opportunity was given to him to explain his position, but, on the other hand, he was arrested. It was further stated by him, that he was innocent and he appeared, in the Court on that date for the first time , and as such, he was not conversant Crl. Revision. No. 671 of 2010 5 with the procedure thereof. 5-A. The accused examined in defence evidence Sewa Ram, as DW1.

6. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated

18.02.2010.

8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision-petition was filed.

9. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that Jaswinder Singh, complainant (PW-1) did not know, as to for what purpose, the accused(now revision- petitioner) had appeared, in the Court. He further submitted that the complainant moved an application, in order to take revenge, due to personal differences, and the land in dispute with the accused. He further submitted that both the Courts Crl. Revision. No. 671 of 2010 6 below did not properly appreciate the evidence of Sewa Ram, DW-1, Panch. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has further submitted that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence rendered by the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same were based on complete mis-reading of evidence or mis- appreciation thereof, or non-consideration of the material piece of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy, and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the Courts below, do not suffer from any Crl. Revision. No. 671 of 2010 7 illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

12. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.

13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. March 04, 2010 dinesh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE