Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::1::
(254-3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 21.03.2024
(1) CRR-2012-2023 (O & M)
Sunder Singh .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(2) CRR-2014-2023 (O & M)
Sukhi Ram .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(3) CRR-2139-2023 (O & M)
Hari Singh .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate,
with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, (in CRR-2012),
Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate (in CRR-2014)
and Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate (in CRR-2139),
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of three criminal revision petitions i.e.
CRR Nos.2012, 2014 and 2139 of 2023 as they arise out of the same FIR.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::2::
(254-3)
2. The above-mentioned revision petitions have been preferred
against the judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Palwal whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal
has been upheld and the sentenced awarded to the petitioners under Section
420 IPC was modified to Section 417 IPC.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from the
petition (CRR-2012-2023).
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.5.2011 a complaint
was received by ASI Mundkati Chowki under section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by
the complainant Satpal against six accused persons under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B IPC submitting that he (complainant) was a permanent
resident of village Banchari, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal. His father were
four brothers namely Chandu Ram, Badan Singh, Chotu Ram and Bhagwan
Singh. Out of them Chotu Ram had died intestate and Bhagwan Singh had
two daughters. Badan Singh worked in the Military around 50-60 years ago
and was unmarried and nor did he have any child. Since then his Uncle
(Chacha) Badan Singh went missing and had not come back till date. His
father Chandu Ram had expired who had five sons. He and his brothers were
the real legal heirs of his uncle Badan Singh and since Badan Singh was
missing they were taking care of his share and doing cultivation on the same.
On 10.5.2011, he came to know from some persons that the land of his uncle
Badan Singh had been mortgaged by the accused persons, namely, Rohtash,
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::3::
(254-3)
Hari Singh Numberdar (petitioner in CRR-2139-2023), Sukhi Ram
(petitioner in CRR-2014-2023) and Sunder (petitioner in CRR-2012-2023),
Field Officer and Manager Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Hodal in
connivance with each other by preparing forged documents with the
intention to cause wrongful loss to them and by getting another person to
appear in place of his Uncle Badan Singh whose name was Sunder son of
Atra took a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Hodal which
was illegal and void. On coming to know about this, he (complainant) had
moved an application dated 14.5.2011 to Manager Gurgoan Gramin Bank,
Hodal Branch and one application was moved on 16.5.2011 to S.D.M.,
Hodal. From 16.5.2011 tο 18.5.2011, he kept on visiting Police Station
Hodal, but no action was taken by the police. Hence, the present complaint
had been filed.
5. The aforementioned complaint led to the registration of the FIR
No. 163 dated 30.05.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 120-B IPC and Section 201 IPC, Police Station Hodal. The report
under Section 173 C.P.C. was submitted against Hari Singh, Sukhi Ram, Om
Parkash Kalra and Vijay Pal. On conclusion of the Trial, vide judgment
dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal,
while Om Parkash Kalra and Vijay Pal, both of whom were Bank
employees, were acquitted, the remaining accused (petitioners) came to be
convicted and sentenced as under:-
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::4::
(254-3)
Name of Section Sentence Fine imposed In default of
convict payment
Hari Singh 420 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
Sunder Singh 420 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
201 IPC RI 02 years 2,000/- RI 06 months
Sukhi Ram 420 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
6. The petitioners-accused preferred separate appeal before the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. Vide judgment dated
18.08.2023, the said Court while upholding the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.01.2018 modified the same to the extent that
instead of Section 420 IPC, the appellants were convicted under Section 417
IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The modified sentence is reproduced as
under:-
Name of Section Sentence Fine imposed In default of
convict payment
Hari Singh 417 IPC RI for 01 years 2,000/- RI 03 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
Sunder Singh 417 IPC RI for 01 years 2,000/- RI 03 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::5::
(254-3)
Name of Section Sentence Fine imposed In default of
convict payment
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
201 IPC RI 02 years 2,000/- RI 06 months
Sukhi Ram 417 IPC RI for 01 years 2,000/- RI 03 months
467 IPC RI for 03 years 3,000/- RI 09 months
468 IPC RI for 03 years 2,000/- RI 09 months
471 IPC RI for 01 year 1,000/- RI 03 months
7. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petitions.
8. As per the custody certificates dated 14.03.2024, the
petitioners-Sunder Singh, Hari Singh and Sukhi Ram have undergone actual
custody of 08 months 20 days, 10 months 19 days and 08 months, 05 days
respectively.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Courts
below had failed to take into consideration the fact that all the witnesses of
the prosecution were interested witnesses and were thus, untrustworthy.
There were material discrepancies and contradictions in their statements.
The defence version had erroneously not been accepted. The prosecution
story was highly improbable and appears to be a concocted one. No
specimen signatures or hand-writing expert for comparison were taken by
any expert and no wrongful loss was caused to the complainant and
therefore, the offence in question were not made out. They lastly contend
that if this Court was to come to the conclusion that the guilt of the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::6::
(254-3)
petitioners was established beyond doubt, their sentence ought to be reduced
to the period already undergone by them given the fact that admittedly, no
loan had been disbursed by the Bank and therefore, the complainant had not
suffered any loss.
10. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that no fault could be found with the well-reasoned judgments of the Trial
Court and the Lower Appellate Court. All the grounds raised in the present
petitions had been considered and dealt with in their proper perspective and
therefore, the present petitions were liable to be dismissed. He, however,
concedes that as the loan was not disbursed, no actual loss had been caused
to any one.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. A perusal of the record would reveal that the prosecution has
proved the loan documents Ex.P-1 to P-10 alongwith mortgage deed Ex.PW-
7/A and on the same, photographs of Sunder and attesting witnesses Hari
Singh Namberdar and Sukhi Ram were present. No suggestion had been
given by the defence counsel that the photographs affixed on these
documents were not of the accused persons. Even otherwise, the
photographs on the document Ex.PW-7/A are computerized photographs
which would have been taken when the accused persons were themselves
present in the office of the Sub Registrar. It is not disputed that the property
in question belongs to one Badan Singh son of Karan Singh. No revenue
record had been produced by the accused in their defence to prove that the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041517
2024:PHHC:041517
CRR-2012-2023 ::7::
(254-3)
property in question belongs to them. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that
the three accused-petitioners, namely, Sunder Singh, Hari Singh and Sukhi
Ram have committed the offence of forgery and the said documents were
prepared with an intention to to induce the Bank officials for delivering the
loan amount to them.
13. In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere
with the well-reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and the Lower
Appellate Court. Therefore, the present revision petitions stands dismissed.
14. As regards the quantum of sentence is concerned, it may be
relevant to mention here that the FIR was registered in the year 2011.
Therefore, the petitioners have suffered a protracted Trial for more than 12
years. Further, no actual financial loss has been caused to anyone.
Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, I deem it
appropriate to modify the sentence and reduce it to the period already
undergone by them.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
March 21, 2024 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
