Sudhir Sharma vs Cbi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5848 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: 15th December 2010

                                 Date of Order: December 22, 2010

                                     + Crl. Rev. No.737/2010
%                                                                              22.12.2010
         Sudhir Sharma                                                ...Petitioner

         Versus

         CBI                                                          ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. C.M. Verma for petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa for CBI/ respondent.


         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

dated 16th October 2010 passed by learned first appellate court upholding the conviction

of the petitioner awarded by learned trial court vide judgment dated 24th December 2009.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under Sections 380, 419,

420, 465, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and also under Section 12(1)(a)(d)

of Indian Passport Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with co-

accused Gurjinder Singh stole six unused official passports in the name of officials

namely Mr. U.K. Verma, Mr. A.G. Dixit, Mr. Surender Singh, Mr. Parveen Singh Aswal,

Ms. Anita Peter and Mr. S.C. Kulshrestra. The petitioner forged these passports by

affixing photographs of persons who were aspiring to go abroad and he forged the

Crl. Rev. No. 737/2010 Page 1 Of 2 passports into passport of six aspirants namely, Mandeep Singh Kehlon, Balbir Singh,

Lakhbir Singh, Nachhtar Pal, Gurinder Kaur and Virsa Singh and sent them abroad. The

two courts below after considering the evidence adduced and considering the CFSL

report showing that the forgery was done by the petitioner came to conclusion that the

petitioner was guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted the petitioner for

abovementioned offences. The petitioner was sentenced by the learned trial court under

different provisions. All imprisonments were to run concurrent. Thus, the petitioner was

sentenced to maximum three years of imprisonment and payment of fine.

3. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order on merits

and seeks to argue that the trial courts have not appreciated the evidence properly and

have wrongly convicted the petitioner.

4. It is settled law that while considering a revision petition, this court has not to act

as a court of second appeal and cannot disturb the concurrent findings on facts given by

the two courts below. The two courts below after considering the evidence have come to

conclusion that the petitioner was the person responsible for stealing the passports, he

forged them and used the same for aspirants who wanted to go abroad, got them

photographed in a particular manner, prepared visa application and obtained visa on

their behalf, obtained foreign exchange, tickets and sent them abroad.

5. I find no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order of learned trial court. There is

no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

December 22, 2010                                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd



Crl. Rev. No. 737/2010                                                                   Page 2 Of 2