Parvindar Singh @ Raja Singh @ ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11659 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 734 of 2022 (PARVINDAR SINGH @ RAJA SINGH @ RAJMAAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 25-07-2023 Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Tarun Pagare - GA for State.

Heard on IA No.10100/2023 which is third application for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.1 Parvinder Singh.

The appellant has been convicted u/Ss.420/120, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC

and respectively sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, seven years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation.

As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 5.5.2013 to 08/05/2013 the present appellant along with co-accused persons projecting themselves to be the employees of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) promised the complainant to provide job in the CISF on the post of Head Constable and fraudulently created fake interview procedure and issued call letter for the

amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. Later, the complainant got caught at the time of reporting in the academy. Subsequently a complaint was filed and after trial the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

The prosecution has proved that the appointment letter was issued by the appellant. PW.11 Balbir Singh Chouhan in his deposition has clearly stated that he had taken the specimen signature of the appellant vide Ex.P.9 and the same was sent to the handwriting expert. The report was submitted by handwriting expert Manisha Jain. Since she was on maternity leave, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 26-07-2023 17:30:17

prosecution proved the said report and her signature through PW.14 Shruti Singh Chouhan. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that fraud and forgery was committed by the present appellant.

Counsel for appellant submits that since the handwriting expert was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, the appellant could not get opportunity to cross examine him and, therefore, the same could not have been basis for conviction. He relies on para 8 of the judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Swapan Kumar Dutta Vs. State 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 937 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 286.

In the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved obtaining of specimen signature of the appellant by the testimony of PW.11 Baljit Singh Yadav and since the handwriting expert was on maternity leave, PW.14 Shruti Singh Chouhan was examined to prove the said document and she verified the contents of the document and the signature of Manisha Jain.

In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence, the judgment relied by counsel for appellant would not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, prima facie no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, IA No.10100/2023 for suspension of sentence of appellant Parvindar Singh is dismissed.

                                (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)                                 (PRANAY VERMA)
                                        JUDGE                                            JUDGE

                           VM




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 26-07-2023
17:30:17