Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
245 CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.08.2024
Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tanvi Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition
against the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for
the commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
IPC and was sentenced as under:-
Under Sections Imprisonment
420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
payment of fine to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two months.
467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two months.
468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one month.
471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment
of fine to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one
month.
2. At the very outset, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner does not wish to
challenge the conviction recorded by the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court; however, some leniency may be shown while
awarding the sentence to the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner
has not challenged his conviction, still this Court has examined the
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
legality of the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the trial
Court as well as appellate Court.
3. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of
the letter 14361/Steno dated 22.09.1999, which was submitted by the
Commandant, 5th Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. It was mentioned that C.
Gurdeep Singh No. IRB-1/297 now 5-C/445 produced his 10th class
certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar,
Mohali. After the process for recruitment, the matriculation certificate
was sent to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali,
for verification by the Commandant, 1st IRB Bn. Patiala vide letter
No. 10404/CRC dated 14.11.1995. Vide communication
No. 6557/Inquiry Certificate No. 499/98 dated 10.09.1998, the board
sent a report regarding matriculation certificate and reported that as
per the relevant result/gazette notification, the date of birth of
Gurdeep Singh son of Ram Chand accused was 04.02.1971 and not
04.02.1973. As such, C. Gurdeep Singh by way of cutting by some
other wrong means, had shown his age less by two years and had
secured the job by using illegal means and had committed a fraud. It
was prayed that action may be taken against him and the FIR may be
registered.
4. After the registration of the case, the investigation was
conducted in the present case and the final report under Section 173
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -4-
Cr.P.C. was presented against him. After taking into account, the
incriminating evidence collected during the course of investigation,
the trial Court found that a prima facie case under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC was made out against the present petitioner and he
was ordered to be charge sheeted accordingly.
5. To bring home the guilt against the petitioner, the
prosecution examined Prag Jain IPS as PW1, ASI Bhupinder Rai as
PW2, Surinder Kaur, Head Mistress as PW3, Prem Lata Junior
Assistant as PW4, Sushil Kumar, Senior Assistant as PW5, Joginder
Singh, Senior Assistant as PW6, Pritam Singh, Principal Government
Senior Secondary School, Leelan Megh Singh as PW7 and Inspector
Mohinder Dass as PW8 and thereafter the evidence was closed by the
APP.
6. After the closure of the evidence, the statement of the
petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded that
he was falsely involved in the present case. In fact, there was a
clerical mistake in recording the date of birth at the time of admission
in his school. Later on, he got the same corrected. He also produced
the birth certificate from the Registrar of Births and his actual date of
birth was 04.02.1973 and not 04.02.1971, which is a clerical mistake
in the school record and he had mentioned correct date of birth when
he joined the service.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -5-
7. In defence, petitioner had examined Amarjit Singh as
DW1 and the evidence was closed.
8. I have perused the record and the impugned judgments
passed by both the Courts.
9. In the present case, it has been alleged by the prosecution
that the petitioner/accused had forged his matriculation certificate and
instead of 04.02.1971, he had mentioned his date of birth as
04.02.1973. To prove the said charge, the prosecution had examined
PW1 Prag Jain, IPS, Commandant and he proved on record Ex. PA
and Ex. PB. As per Ex.PA, the date of birth of petitioner was shown as
04.02.1973 and even in the application form Ex.PC, the date of birth
was recorded as 04.02.1973. Bhupinder Rai was examined as PW2
and he stated that Harpreet Singh Sidhu, the then DSP, Patiala had
entrusted the investigation to him and he had collected the record. He
had arrested the accused and the search memo Ex.PE was prepared by
him. The prosecution further examined Surinder Kaur, Head Mistress,
Government High School, Jandi, District Ludhiana, who produced the
admission and withdrawal register, copy of gazette issued by Punjab
School Education Board, register of the school showing the marks of
the students from Government High School, Leelan Megh Singh and
as per the record of the school, the date of birth of the petitioner was
04.02.1971. She proved the certified copy of admission and
withdrawal register Ex.PW3/A, original roll number of petitioner as
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -6-
Ex.PW3/B and copy of the gazette as Ex.PW3/C. She stated that the
correct date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 04.02.1971 and by
cutting, he had changed it to 04.02.1973. Even, the petitioner had
wrongly shown his total score as 384, in stead of 284.
10. Prem Lata, Junior Assistant, 05th Commando Battalion,
Bahadurgarh, Patiala, appeared as PW4 and proved on record the
service record of the petitioner. Sushil Kumar, Senior Assistant, Police
Commando Training, Bahadurgarh proved the dismissal order of the
petitioner. Joginder Singh, Senior Assistant, Punjab School Education
Board, PW6 compared the result with Ex.PW3/C, which was attested
copy of the gazette and as per the record, his date of birth was shown
as 04.02.1971 and he had secured 284 marks out of 800 marks. He
failed in English as per gazette.
11. The prosecution further examined PW7 Pritam Singh,
who was posted as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School,
Leelan Megh Singh, who had also proved the date of birth of the
petitioner as 04.02.1971 and corroborated the testimony of PW3
Surinder Kaur, Head Mistress and PW6 Joginder Singh, Senior
Assistant. The prosecution had further examined Mohinder Dass,
Inspector, Women Cell, Mansa, as PW8, who had conducted the
investigation in the present case.
12. In the present case, the main allegations against the
petitioner was that he had forged his matriculation certificate and had
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -7-
shown his date of birth as 04.02.1973, i.e., two years less than the
actual date of birth and by producing such a certificate, he had
cheated the Commandant, 5th Battalion and had induced him to get the
petitioner recruited as a constable. He had also produced the forged
matriculation certificate, i.e., a valuable security. Further, I have also
gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the
evidence led by both the sides in the light of the settled cannons of
law. Apart from that, the Courts have recorded well reasoned findings
and there is no ground to deviate from the same. Consequently, the
impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as
appellate Court are ordered to be upheld.
13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial/appeal since
28.10.1999, i.e., for the last about 25 years. Apart from that, the
service of the petitioner has already been terminated by the Punjab
Police. Further, at the time of his conviction by the trial Court, he was
aged about 34 years. Consequently, at present, the petitioner is aged
more than 50 years and is sole bread earner of the family.
Consequently, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
14. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -8-
the ground that the petitioner was involved in forgery of his
matriculation certificate and had committed a fraud with Punjab
Police. Consequently, he does not deserve any leniency.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
16. Vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2008, the petitioner
was sentenced to undergo for a period of 03 years and as per the
custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone sentence of
more than 04 months. Even, the amount of fine has already been
deposited by him. Further, it is apparent from the record that the FIR
in the present case was registered on 28.10.1999 and the petitioner
has already faced the agony of trial/appeal for the last about 25 years.
Even the petitioner had obtained the job of a constable in Punjab
Police, however, his service was terminated by the Punjab Police in
the year 1999 itself. Thus, taking a lenient view of the matter, the
sentence imposed on the petitioner is ordered to the reduced to the
period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine will
remain the same as awarded by the trial Court. The petitioner has
already deposited the fine.
17. With the above modifications, the revision is partly
allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner is
upheld, whereas the order of sentence is modified to the extent that
the sentence imposed on the present petitioner is reduced to the period
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104569
CRR 2126 of 2009 (O&M) -9-
already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine will remain
the same as awarded by the trial Court. The petitioner has already
deposited the fine amount.
18. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
08.08.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
