Delhi High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) on 18 July, 2011
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: July 18, 2011
+ CRL. REV. P. 167/2005
YOGESH SHARMA ....PETITIONER
Through: Nemo.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of
learned ACMM dated 1st November, 2004 and the consequent order
on sentence of the even date whereby the petitioner Yogesh Sharma
has been convicted for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced
to undergo RI for a period of one year, besides fine of ` 1000/- and
also the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal
dated 28th January, 2005, whereby he dismissed the appeal on
merits.
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
Yogesh Sharma was undergoing trial in case FIR No.312/97 under
Sections 427/451/506 IPC, P.S. Sultanpur. He failed to put in
appearance on hearing dated 26th September, 2003 and sent his son
Kapil with a medical certificate Ex.PW1/A purportedly issued by
Alpana Medicare Centre and an application seeking exemption from
personal presence through his counsel Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Advocate.
Learned M.M., in order to confirm the genuineness of medical
certificate, conducted an enquiry and issued notice to Dr. Arun
Aggarwal of Alpana Medicare Centre, 812/4. The notice, however,
was received back with the report that such medical centre did not
exist at the given address and no doctor with the name of Dr. Arun
Aggarwal existed there. Thus, the concerned Magistrate, on the
basis of enquiry, prima facie concluded that the medical certificate
was forged and got the FIR registered. After investigation, it was
concluded that the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner in
the court was forged and the petitioner was charge sheeted.
3. The learned ACMM charged the petitioner for offences under
Sections 193/468/120B IPC as also under Sections 471 & 420 IPC
read with Section 511 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner, prosecution
has examined three witnesses namely Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Advocate
(PW1), Ajit Kumar, Ahlmad of the Court (PW2) and the Investigating
Officer SI Ram Avtar (PW3). Relying upon the testimony of IO SI
Ram Avtar, learned ACMM found the petitioner guilty and convicted
and sentenced him for offence under Section 471 IPC accordingly.
5. The petitioner in the revision petition claims that medical
certificate Ex.PW1/A submitted by him in the court was issued by
Dr.Alam Gir @ Kaisar Alam who is still running a clinic in Seelampur,
opposite Senior Secondary School. In his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., petitioner claimed that he had gone for treatment to
Dr.Alam Gir who gave him medical certificate Ex.PW1/A and he was
not aware whether the medical certificate was forged or not. The
defence taken by the petitioner is not convincing. Otherwise also,
he has failed to examine Dr.Alam Gir @ Kaisar Alam to substantiate
his defence that medical certificate Ex.PW1/A was issued by the said
doctor. From the statement of investigating officer, it is evident that
although medical certificate is purported to have been issued by
doctor at Alpana Medicare Centre, no such medical centre existed at
the given address. Thus, I find no infirmity in the concurrent finding
of fact given by learned ACMM as also learned Additional Sessions
Judge who dismissed the appeal.
6. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference by
this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
7. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2011
akb
