Delhi High Court
Goura Hari Das vs State Thru C.B.I. on 7 March, 2007
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. None present on behalf of the petitioner. Likewise there was no appearance on the previous dates of hearings namely 26.7.2006 and 17.11.2006.
2. This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.12.1994 on the petitioner. He was convicted of offences under Section 120B read with Section 419/468/471 IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had petitioned the Supreme Court, being aggrieved by an order of the Orissa High Court, upholding the award of contract for shrimp farming/prawn catching to someone else. The court issued notice but declined to grant ex parte stay. The further allegation was that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused caused a fabricated document i.e. a telegram to be issued ostensibly on behalf of the Joint Registrar of the Supreme Court, holding out that the court had given the ex parte ad interim stay. The first information report was lodged at the behest of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court; after considering the materials the court took cognizance and charged the petitioner. He pleaded guilty and stood trial.
4. In the course of the trial court proceedings the prosecution relied upon the testimony of several witnesses as well as documentary evidence. The trial court by its judgment dated 15.12.1995, convicted the petitioner as charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16 months, for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 419/468/471 IPC and also directed him to pay fine to the extent ofRs. 2,000/- in respect of each of the offences.
5. The petitioner appealed to the District and Sessions Judge who by the impugned order upheld the conviction and sentence. The material part of the impugned order reads as follows:
By the order on sentence dated 18.12.95 the Ld. M.M. has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I., for 16 months and a fine ofRs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable Under Section 419/468/471 IPC for having forged the telegram dated 2.2.94 in the name of Joint Registrar, Supreme Court of India in conspiracy with one Bhagwan Panigrahi. The detailed facts are mentioned in para 2 of the impugned judgment. The circumstances relied against the accused are mentioned on page 22 of the judgment. The most incriminating evidence against the accused are circumstances 7 and 8 on page 22 which show that he along with Bhagwan Panigrahi introduced a person as L.N. Pradhan, who infact was not L.N. Pradhan and in his name a SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court. Before filing the petition in the Supreme Court, they have also consulted with a lawyer Mr. B.A. Mohanty and Mr. P.K. Jena where L.N. Pradhan had not appeared as per the case of the prosecution, but ultimately SLP came to be filed in his name. During investigation the signatures of L.N. Pradhan on the SLP and his Advocate's signature were compared, but even to the naked eye as per the impugned judgment, they were different.
The other circumstantial evidence mentioned on page 22 accused has been taking active interest in the case from Civil Court to High Court and thereafter, in the Supreme Court on different date of hearings. He spoke to P.W.12 and after that he had become party in the matter. During arguments in this Court, it has transpired that accused is a civil servant in the Department of Forest in Orissa, which itself acts as circumstance to show his extra ordinary interest in the case which was nowhere connected with him personally or as a remote beneficiary. These circumstances alone do go to suggest the element of agreement with the other accused persons to pursue the illegal act of filing the petition in Supreme Court in order to direct the stay of operation of High Court order against catching of prawns. The offence of conspiracy not only consist in agreement as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the accused, who has relied on three judgments i.e. , State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Ors.; , Vijayan v. State of Kerala; and , P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala, but also consists of knowledge of conspiracy as mentioned by Supreme Court in judgment of Som Nath Thapar 1996 (4) SCC 569.
In this case the accused has all through the knowledge of the conspiracy and of the subject perused. Therefore, I do not find any wrong appreciation of facts and circumstances by the trial court, so as to say it was perverse or not based on the facts, and no reason to interfere.
In these circumstances, I uphold the impugned order dated 18.12.94 of the Ld. Trial Court and maintain the sentence. It is also stated that he has already undergone the period of 16 months awarded by the trial court and has also paid the find. The appeal is dismissed.
6. The petitioner in these revision proceedings has raised various factual issues mainly pertaining to appreciation of evidence by the courts below, particularly as far as the testimony of witnesses is concerned. It is therefore urged that the courts below committed an error in concluding that he was guilty as charged.
7. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of sixteen months' rigorous imprisonment as is evident from the muster roll submitted, in the proceedings.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken me through the judgments of the court below. The scope of Section 379/401 in such cases is extremely limited; unless the court is convinced that the orders complained of would result in miscarriage of justice or are palpably erroneous or illegal, it would decline to exercise jurisdiction. The court cannot act as a second Appellate Court having regard to the limitations inherent under Section 397. In view of these parameters I am satisfied that no case calling for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
