Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1 Cr.R. No.4555/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4555 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PAWAN KUMAR S/O SHRI SHOBHARAM
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE CHHATARPUR WARD NO 1 GOHAD
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION UMRI DISTRICT BHIND MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( P.P.S. BAZEETA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner under section
397r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment
dated 10/07/2023 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, District
Bhind in Cr. A. No. 421/2021 affirming the judgment dated 16/04/2021 passed
in Criminal Case No. 2496/2013 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind,
District Bhind, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 419 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 3 D/4
of Recognized Examination Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this
criminal revision are that ASI R.S. Tomar was on examination duty at Center
Shantibai Higher Secondary School, Bisalpura, Bhind on 12.3.2013. In-charge
of Center Mr. Kailash sharma reported the matter to the A.S.I. that Invigilator
Mr. Deepak Yadav was on duty at Room No.4 of the said center and while
matching of the sign and photos of the candidate he found that another
candidate was appearing in place of Jitendra Yadav for exam of Class-X.
When invigilator asked that student his name and address, he told that his name
as Jitendra Yadav S/o Tej Singh. On suspicion when invigilator asked his name
strictly, the said student told that his name is Pawan Kumar. Thereafter, the
report was lodged bearing crime No. 43/2012 at police station Umri, District
Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 419 of the I.P.C. and Section
3 D/4 of Recognized Examination Act of I.P.C. and after investigation, charge
sheet was filed under the above sections.
3. Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 419 of the I.P.C.
and Section 3 D/4 of Recognize Examination Act of I.P.C. against the
petitioner -accused which were denied by the petitioner and he pleaded not
guilty. After taking evidence and hearing the parties on merits, the learned trial
Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 419 of
I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and
fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 3 D/4 of Recognized Examination Act and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of
Rs. 1000/- .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court as well
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
as learned appellate Court has passed the order against the settled principle of
law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that both the courts
below have wrongly defined the section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination
Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted under
section 419 of the I.P.C whereas, as per prosecution evidence no such type of
fraud has been committed by the petitioner at the time of incident. He was aged
about 20 years, therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment may
be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charge under Sections
419 of the I.P.C. and Section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation
of evidence, learned both the Courts below have found the offence proved
against the petitioner, which requires no interference; therefore, it has been
prayed that the revision filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the case in hand, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses to
prove its case. Ranjit Singh (PW-4), ASI Special Branch, Morena in his court
statement has corroborated the prosecution story and deposed that on 12.3.2013
he was on duty at Shantibai Higher Secondary School, Bisalpura. The
invigilators of examination were checking out the role number and presence of
candidates. Invigilator Depeek Yadav on suspicion about the candidate Jitendra
Yadav S/o Tej Singh, appearing in that exam, informed the In-charge of Center.
On query to petitioner Pawan Kumar, it was found that he was having
admission card in the name of Jitendra Yadav S/o Tej Singh and was taking the
exam impersonating himself as Jitendra Yadav. Thereafter, Kailashchandra
Sharma gave him the written complainant, on the basis of which, he registered
the Dehati Nalsi bearing No.0/2013 under Sections 419, 420 of the I.P.C. and
Section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination Act( Ex.P/2). Thereafter, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
investigated the matter and arrested the petitioner and prepared memo of arrest
(Ex.P/8). On search, PAN Card was found in the name of Pawan Kumar with
photo of accused/petitioner on it. The same was seized as per memo of seizure
(Ex.P/3). Thereafter, he registered FIR bearing crime No. 43/2013 at Police
Station Umri, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and
420 of the I.P.C. and Section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination Act
(Ex.P/17). During investigation, he has also seized relevant documents in
respect to this examination.
8. The statement of Ranjit Singh (PW-4) remain unchallenged in his cross-
examination. Kailashchandra Sharma (PW-1), the In-charge of the
Examination Center has also corroborated the statement of Ranjit Singh (PW-
4).
9. Satish Chandra (PW-3) also supported the prosecution story and deposed
that petitioner Pawan Kumar was caught while appearing in examination
impersonating himself as Jitendra Yadav by Invigilator. According to this
witness, relevant documents were seized and handed over to the ASI R.S.
Tomar as per Ex.P/10.
10. Kamlesh Babu (PW-5) corroborated the evidence of Ranjit Singh Tomar
(PW-4) as well and deposed that as per memo of seizure (Ex.P/18) relevant
documents in respect to the examination relating to candidate of Jitendra Yadav
S/o Tej Singh were seized.
11. The Court statements of aforesaid witnesses remain unchallenged in their
cross-examination and nothing emerged in their cross-examination that may
raise doubt over their statements. On the basis of reliable and cogent evidence
of above prosecution witness, it is apparent that the prosecution has proved it's
case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, learned Courts below have
rightly convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 419 of the I.P.C. and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
Section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination Act.
12. It is well settled that the object of the provisions of revision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the
orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and
appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked
where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or perversely. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in
a routine manner. In the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460 it is held that revisional jurisdiction of the Court u/s 397 CrPC can
be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions
of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily.
13. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that in the case in
hand the learned Courts below while convicting the petitioner have not
exercised their judicial discretion arbitrarily or perversely, the courts below
passed the judgments in compliance with the provisions of law in accordance
with the evidence available on record hence the judgment of conviction passed
by the learned Courts below requires no interference and the same is hereby
maintained.
14. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to set
aside the sentence and to release the petitioner on Probation.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of
offence, the prayer is not allowed. However, in view of the fact that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
petitioner is at present in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 10.7.2023 and has
been facing the trial for almost 10 years, the sentence awarded by the Courts
below for the offence under Section 419 of the I.P.C. and Section 3D/4 of
Recognized Examination Act are reduced from a period of 3 years to 6 months
for each offence enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- for
each (total amount of fine Rs.4000/-) which shall be deposited within a period
of one month, failing which, the petitioner shall further suffer rigorous
imprisonment of two months for each offence. The sentence under Section 419
of the I.P.C. and Section 3D/4 of the Recognized Examination Act shall run
concurrently.
17. In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of
conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the aforesaid extent.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
Ahmad* JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 20-Oct-23
5:48:10 PM
