Shyam Kumar vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 41 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of Reserve: 10th December, 2010

                                 Date of Order: January 04, 2011

                                     + Crl. Rev No. 730/2010
%                                                                              04.01.2011
         Shyam Kumar                                                  ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State                                                        ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. R.D. Rana with Mr. KM Asad for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/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 9th November 2010 of learned ASJ, New Delhi upholding the conviction of the

appellant under Section 411/419/420/467/468/471 IPC.

2. The allegations against the petitioner were that the petitioner along with another

accused Radhey Shyam committed theft of a draft of Rs.7,000/- which was in the name

of Gurdeep Singh and thereafter by forging documents and by impersonation he opened

an account in the name of Gurdeep Singh and out of Rs.7,000/-, Rs.6900/- was

withdrawn from the account. The signatures of Gurdeep Singh were forged in the

account opening form, on the pay in slip and on all other documents for opening the

account and withdrawal of money. The learned trial court after considering the entire

evidence found that other accused Radhey Shaym had no role in the conspiracy and it

was accused Shyam Kumar only, the present petitioner, who was responsible for

Crl. Rev. P. 730/2010 Page 1 Of 2 impersonation, cheating, forging of documents and withdrawal of this money on the basis

of forged documents. The learned trial court appreciated the entire evidence by

analyzing the testimony of each witness. Thereafter the learned first appellate court

again reappreciated the evidence and came to the same conclusion that it was present

petitioner who was guilty of offence under Section 411/419/420/467/468/471 IPC.

3. In the revision, the petitioner has again assailed the order of learned first

appellate court on merits and has stated that the judgment was passed by the trial court

as well as first appellate court without appreciating the evidence. It was also stated that

the both the courts below failed to take note of Section 300 Cr.P.C whereby the

petitioner should have been released on probation. The sentence awarded by the

learned trial court was excessive and harsh.

4. The arguments raised by the petitioner are untenable. This court cannot act as a

court of second appeal and cannot reappreciate the entire evidence. As far as grant of

probation to the petitioner is concerned, the conduct of the petitioner is not such that he

should have been granted probation. After his conviction by the learned trial court, the

petitioner was granted suspension of sentence for filing appeal and he filed appeal.

Thereafter, he absconded and did not appear before the first appellate court. The

proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C had to be initiated against the petitioner and he

could be arrested only after being declared as proclaimed offender. I consider where a

person made deliberate attempt to escape from clutches of law after being convicted, he

cannot be granted benefit of probation. I find no force in this revision petition. The same

is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

January 04, 2011                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl. Rev. P. 730/2010                                                     Page 2 Of 2