Mohd. Guffran vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3759 Del

 *                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               Criminal Revision Petition No.401 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. No.13207 of
                                2010 & Crl. M. (Bail) No.1077 of 2010

%                                                                               12.08.2010

          MOHD. GUFFRAN                                          ...... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate.

                                             Versus

          STATE                                                    ......Respondents
                                        Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State.

                                                             Reserved on: 5th August, 2010
                                                          Pronounced on: 12th August, 2010

          JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.        Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.        To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.        Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                       JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of

the appellate court dated 28th July, 2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge

upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420/471 read with Section 467 IPC

but reduced the sentence from three years awarded by the trial court to six months

rigorous imprisonment and in addition directed payment of Rs.1,000/- each as fine for the

two offences.

2. The case against the petitioner was that a Maruti Car 800 bearing registration

No.DL 6 CB 5991, Chasis No.2060674 and Engine No.3081056 was stolen from outside

the House No.269, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested in

this case and he got recovered this car. It was found that the petitioner had, by creating

false and forge documents mark Q-1 to Q-4 and Q-9 to Q-12, got transferred the car in the

name of Mohd. Salim Khan. The petitioner used these documents fraudulently for

cheating Mohd. Salim Khan as well as inducing Ghaziabad Transport Authority to

transfer the registration of car on the basis of these forged documents. The learned trial

court, after considering entire evidence and record, acquitted the petitioner of charges of

theft but convicted him under Sections 420/471 IPC read with Section 467 IPC. The

learned appellate court after again re-appreciating the entire evidence came to conclusion

that commission of offence under Sections 420/471 IPC read with Section 467 IPC was

proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

3. By present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned appellate

court on the ground that the evidence produced before the learned trial court was not

trustworthy and has been wrongly believed by the trial court and the appellate court and

both courts erred in convicting the accused. The prosecution had not examined

Ms. Poonam Ghambhir whose car was stolen and had not cited witnesses from transport

authority, Delhi to prove the actual engine number and chasis number of the car. It is

stated that prosecution also failed to examine certain material witnesses and adverse

inference should have been drawn against the prosecution. Perusal of other grounds also

shows that the petitioner has assailed the order of learned appellate court on merits as if

this court was to hear second appeal.

4. The High Court can interfere under Section 397 Cr.P.C. only if there was an issue

of correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed

by the Sessions Court or there was any irregularity in the proceedings of the Sessions

Court. The High Court in its power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. cannot act as a court of

second appeal and cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence to substitute its own opinion

against the opinion of the appellate court. The scope of revision against the concurrent

finding of fact is very limited. The revisional jurisdiction does not confer power on the

revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence on record. The revisional court can

examine the record only to satisfy itself that the court below had conducted the

proceedings in an appropriate manner and had taken into account entire evidence before

passing the judgment. The judgment is not to be resorted to as a second appeal.

5. During arguments, counsel for the petitioner had only been agitating that the

conclusion arrived at by the trial court as well as by the appellate court was not correct

conclusion and he wanted this court to re-appreciate the entire evidence. I consider that

this court in view of Section 393 Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence to arrive

at a different conclusion than one arrived at by the appellate court. I, therefore, find no

force in this revision. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA [JUDGE] AUGUST 12, 2010 'AA'