Delhi High Court
Manjeet Singh vs State on 24 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 11th February, 2011
Date of Order: 24th February, 2011
+Crl. Rev. P. 492 of 2010
%
24.02.2011
MANJEET SINGH ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vikas Yadav, Advocate
Versus
STATE ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP
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 has been preferred by the petitioner against a judgment
dated 6th August, 2010 of the Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the
petitioner against his conviction under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was
upheld.
2. Complainant Sant Singh's son lived in Germany while his son-in-law
Manmohan Singh lived in village Tanda, Hoshiyar Pur. Complainant's son
Gurmeet Singh sent a bank draft of ` 2,00,000/- through registered post to the
complainant at the address of his son-in-law. When this bank draft was not
received, complainant told his son about the non receipt of the bank draft. His
son gave him details of the bank draft. On verification, complainant came to
know that bank draft of ` 2.00 lakh payable in his name had already been got
encashed by opening a saving bank account No. 23994 in Central Bank of
India, Tilak Nagar Branch, in the name of Sant Singh showing residential
address of account holder Sant Singh as A-701, DDA Colony, Chaukhandi.
The complainant informed the police and the interrogation of police showed
that account was opened on 12th August, 1993 by the accused. It was
introduced by another account holder Dilbagh having saving bank account
No. 17489 of the same branch of the same bank. Entire amount of draft of `
2.00 lakh was withdrawn by the accused. The accused impersonated as Sant
Singh. He forged the signature of Sant Singh. Deposited the bank draft in the
name of Sant Singh in the newly opened account and took away the money.
The offences against the accused under different section of IPC were proved
before the trial court beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Appellate
Court again considered the entire evidence and came to the same conclusion.
3. In the present petition the petitioner has assailed the order of trial court
on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
petitioner and he was wrongly convicted.
4. It is settled law that a revision court does not act as second appellate
court and the revision court can interfere with the order of the lower court only
if the lower court has acted beyond jurisdiction or has not exercised
jurisdiction or an illegality was committed which goes to the root of the matter.
No such case is made out by the petitioner. The petitioner's other contention
is that the petitioner was a chronic patient of high blood-pressure, diabetes,
kidney problem etc. and he was hospitalized in the jail hospital from the date
he was sent to jail and was often referred by jail authorities to RML Hospital
and DDU Hospital, therefore, the court should take lenient view and set aside
the judgment of the trial court. I consider that on the grounds of ailment of
petitioner, a well reasoned judgment passed by the Trial Court, upheld by the
Appellate Court, cannot be set aside. The petition has no force and is hereby
dismissed.
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
