Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh on 18 September, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M)
Reserved on: 10.09.2024
Date of Decision: 18.09.2024
State of Punjab
......Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh
......Respondent
2. CRR-2418-2003
Sham Lal
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
......Respondent
3. CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
Constable Yadwinder Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-852-SB-2001)
for the petitioner in CRR-2418-2003.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. Parul Dhingra, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-2306-2003.
****
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 11:36:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
-2-
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since both the above revisions (supra) as well as the criminal
appeal (supra) arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge
concerned, hence all the appeal/revisions (supra) are amenable for a
common verdict being made thereons.
2. All the appeal/revisions (supra) are directed against the
impugned verdict, as made on 03.11.2003, respectively upon Criminal
Appeal No.6 of 22.03.2002, upon Criminal Appeal No.9 of 12.4.2002 and
upon Criminal Appeal No.24 of 12.4.2002, wherethroughs the appeal of one
Sukhwinder Singh became accepted and accordingly he was acquitted of the
charges offences, whereas, the appeal filed by accused Yadwinder Singh and
Sham Lal against the verdict of conviction recorded by JMIC, Ludhiana,
became upheld. The learned trial Judge concerned (JMIC, Ludhiana),
sentenced the convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.
"ACCUSED YADVINDER SINGH IS TO UNDERGO
i) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default lof payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
Six months for having committed offence U/s 120/B IPC.
ii) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed offence U/s 467 IPC.
iii) RI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.800/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of three
months for having committed offence U/s 468 IPC.
(iv) RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of one
month for having committed offence U/s 471 IPC read with Section
120-B IPC.
(v) RI for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of six
months for having committed offence U/s 467 IPC read with Section
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
120-B IPC.
ACCUSED SHAM LAL IS TO UNDERGO
i) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed defence U/s 120/B IPC.
ii) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed offence U/s 467 IPC read with
section 120/B IPC;
iii) RI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.800/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of three
months for having committed offence U/s 468 IPC read with section
120 B IPC;
iv) RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of one
month for having committed offence U/s 471 IPC read with section
120 B IPC.
v) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed offence U/s 467 IPC.
vi) RI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.800/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of three
months for having committed offence U/s 420 IPC.
ACCUSED SUKHWINDER SINGH IS TO UNDERGO
i) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed offence u/s 120/B IPC.
ii) RI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.800/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of three
months for having committed offence U/s 468 IPC read with Section
120/B IPC.
iii) RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of
six months for having committed offence u/s 467 IPC read with
Section 120/B IPC
iv) RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for a period of one
month for having committed offence U/s 471 IPC."
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
3. Since the accused-convict became aggrieved from the above
drawn concurrent verdict of conviction, besides also, became aggrieved from
the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became
imposed, upon accused Yadwinder Singh and accused Sham Lal, by the
learned convicting Court concerned, thereupons they choose to institute
thereagainst their respective criminal revisions respectively bearing
No.CRR-2418-2003 and CRR-2306-2003.
4. The State of Punjab has also filed criminal appeal bearing
No.CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 thus, seeking the quashing of the impugned
order dated 03.11.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby
accused Sukhwinder Singh has been acquitted of the charged offences,
besides seek the upholding of the judgment of conviction recorded by JMIC,
Ludhiana.
Factual Background
5. The genesis of the prosecution case is that accused Sham Lal on
16.01.1995 moved an application for releasing the impounded truck on
sapurdari, thus before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jagraon. On 18.01.1995 on the basis of order of the Court, Sham Lal took
the impounded truck on sapurdari. The investigating officer found the
documents of the file to be false and fabricated. He moved the Court of the
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon to cancel the sapurdari.
The sapurdari order was cancelled. The truck was taken into possession by
the police on 01.2.1995. ASI Jasmer Singh, during investigation approached
DTO Jind, Haryana to verify the ownership of truck in question. As per
record of DTO Jind, the owner of the truck No.HR-31-5287 was one Balwan
Singh s/o Jula Singh resident of Allwa Distt. Jind, Haryana. His truck had
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
engine No.692 DO-1580300 Chassis No.364073-576182 Model I, 1992. The
truck was taken into possession in Police Station, Raikot, had a different
Engine and Chassis Numbers i.e. 692-DOZ-175235 and 34405216-7427
respectively. The truck in question was found to have been stolen by the
accused. All the accused persons in connivance with each other induced the
Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon to release the truck
on sapurdari on the basis of forged and fabricated documents having been
prepared by the accused persons with their, fraudulent intention to get the
truck on sapurdari knowingly very well that they were not owners of the
truck rather the truck was stolen property. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was
arrested on 8.2.1995. The specimen signatures of accused Sukhwinder
Singh, and Sham Lal were taken and those were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chandigarh. The standard and specimen signatures have been
opined to be of the same persons which have been signed by accused
persons on the documents, on file, on the basis of which they committed
forgery and had fraudulently taken truck on sapurdari. Handwriting of
Yadwinder Singh was also taken and his signature was compared with the
certificate and these were opined to be in his hand.
6. During investigation, it was found that truck No.HR-31-5287
bore old No.RJ-13J-1201, and the Truck No.HR-31-5287 with Chassis
Number, during investigation was found bearing different registration
number i.e. DEG 5005 owned by Smt. Amma wife of Bhim Sain Dhir,
resident of 237, Kamla Market, Delhi. Smt. Amma made statement she
never purchased or sold such like truck. From Police Station, Kotwali,
Barnala, FIR No.168/94 it was found by investigating officer that this is a
case of accident of one Ambassador Car No.PBN-9998 in which a boy
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
rumbled to the injuries. That the said case has no connection with truck
No.HR-31-5287 or with accused Sham Lal. After completion of the
investigation challan against the accused was present in the Court under
Sections 420/411/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
7. In FIR bearing No.9 dated 14.01.1995, registered under Section
279, 427, 337 IPC, the instant offending vehicle was impounded. Moreover,
though in the application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., by the applicant,
he claimed the release of the relevant truck, but in the said application he
made a reference to FIR No.168/1994, registered under Sections 279, 337,
304-A of the IPC, whereins, rather the offending vehicle was an Ambassador
car. Moreover, through a report in the said claimed regard becoming made,
wherebys the learned trial Judge concerned, ordered for the release on
Sapurdari of the relevant truck to the applicant.
8. The said release order dated 18.01.1995, passed by SDJM,
Jagraon, on 18.01.1995, was based on a chit (Ex.PW9/A), contents whereof
become extracted hereinafter.
"Certified that the documents RC, Permit, and Receipt of
truck bearing No.HR/31/5287 are in the name of owner Sham Lal s/o
Kishori Lal r/o Barnala in Case NO.?/94 U/s 279/337/338 IPC PS
Kotwali Barnala.
Xxx
Attested Karmit Singh ASI
PS Raikot 16.1.95"
9. It appears that through a mis-recital qua the FIR, relevant to the
apposite application, thus occurring thereins that therebys the relevant truck
became released on Sapurdari to the applicant. However, the said purported
mis-reference did not result in the release of the Ambassador car, involved in
FIR No.168/94. As such, there was no prejudice or loss of property qua the
impounded offending Ambassador car involved in FIR No.168/94 vis-a-vis
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
the lawful owner thereof.
10. Though the release order (supra) did therebys cause release on
Sapurdari of the truck to the applicant, but it was yet contended on the above
purported mis-recital of the FIR apposite to the impounded truck, besides on
a purported mis-reference made in the chit (supra), drawn by ASI Karmit
Singh, besides with therein a declaration occurring that the applicant was the
RC holder of the vehicle concerned, that therebys the investigating officer
concerned, became constrained to, through an application appended as
PW20/E, seek the cancellation of the order, whereby the offending truck was
ordered to be released on Sapurdari.
11. Be that as it may, though on the said application an order is
stated to have been rendered on 01.02.1995, by the SDJM, Jagraon.
However, a thorough searching of the entire record, did not result in the said
order becoming unearthed. Consequently, it appears that the order passed on
18.01.1995 by the learned SDJM, Jagraon, wherebys the offending truck
was ordered to be released to the applicant concerned, did become the valid
anchor, for the applicant thus prima facie becoming the well recipient of the
truck which was released on Sapurdari to him. Moreover, therebys there
was no occasion as such for the investigating officer concerned, to draw
investigations based upon the purported mis-recital (supra) or upon the RC
being not in the name of the applicant, nor there was any occasion for the
investigating officer concerned to, on the basis of a mis-recital occurring in
the relevant chit, thus initiate criminal action against the concerned.
12. If the said order acquired binding and conclusive effect, and,
attained finality, its validity could have been tested only through an order
rescinding the same becoming passed either by Appellate or by the
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
Revisional Court. However, it appears that though for all the above stated
reasons, the order of release on Sapurdari of the offending truck neither
became rescinded nor it became set aside either by the Appellate or by the
Revisional Court, as such it acquired conclusivity. Even if assumingly the
said order cancelling the order (supra), causing release on Sapurdari of the
offending truck vis-a-vis the applicant, thus was made, which however does
not exist on record, yet the review of the said order was barred in view of the
provisions borne Section 362 of Cr.P.C., provisions whereof becomes
extracted hereinafter. Reiteratedly the remedy for testing the validity of the
said order was only either by the learned Appellate of by the Revisional
authority.
"362. Court not to alter judgment.--Save as otherwise
provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in
force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a
clerical or arithmetical error."
13. The investigation as launched by the investigating officer
concerned, based upon the purported mis-recital in the chit (supra), was yet
required to unearth but irrespective of the RC not recording the name of the
applicant qua whether after receiving the sale consideration in respect
thereof, on an apposite oral sale becoming made to the applicant, thus the
RC owner handing over physical possession of the offending to the
applicant. However, the investigating officer concerned, found that one
Balwant Singh was the purported owner of the offending vehicle, but on a
reading of the RC issued qua Balwan Singh, it becomes unraveled, that the
Chassis number and Engine number reflected therein, did not bear
synchronicity with the Chassis number and Engine number of the instant
truck. Contrarily, the owner of the offending vehicle was one Aasha Kapoor,
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
who however was unable to speak whereupon her son stated that his ailing
mother neither purchased the truck nor had alienated the said in favour of the
applicant.
14. Nonetheless, the said statement is of no worthwhile effect as the
official from the District Transport Office produced the RC of the offending
truck, whereins, one Aasha Kappor was echoed to be the appoiste owner.
Therefore, the said made statement by the son of Aasha Kapoor looses its
veracity.
15. Moreover, since even if the applicant was unable to produce on
record any document to suggest, that on payment of consideration qua the
lawful owner i.e. Aasha Kapoor, she had alienated the truck in favour of the
applicant, who rather took the offending vehicle on Sapurdari, yet unless the
lawful owner (supra) had filed an FIR to the effect that the truck had been
stolen, therebys alone it would be assuredly stated that the applicant had
unlawfully acquired possession of the offending truck. However, the lawful
owner did not evidently institute an FIR relating to the fact that the
offending truck became stolen, therebys since the offending truck was not
stolen, as such, given the disability of the owner to state that she had under
an oral agreement received sale consideration, which however may not find
reflection in the bank account concerned, therebys prima facie the applicant
rather did assume the lawful physical possession over the vehicle,
irrespective of the apposite RC not recording the fact of his owning the
vehicle, may be because the applicant did not move any application for the
transfer of his name in the RC before the District Transport Office
concerned. Conspicuously, the (supra) trite factum, has never become
considered nor became adjudicated upon, therebys for want of consideration
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
being made to the above trite factum, besides also for no effective
adjudication becoming made thereon. Resultantly, therebys the impugned
verdict appears to be made without the deepest application of mind vis-a-vis
the trite factum (supra).
16. Reiteratedly, the sequel of the above, especially when the
lawful owner became disabled to speak, is that, the acquisition of possession
over the instant truck by the applicant was not made illegally nor did the
applicant, through causing theft of the offending truck, thus assume
possession thereovers. Therefore, it appears that after an oral sale of the
truck taking place and after his assumingly handing over sale consideration
in respect thereof to the owner, that he assumed possession.
17. The effect of the above, is that, there was strikingly mis-
conclusions made by the investigating officer concerned, that the truck was
stolen, besides it appears that the said mis-conclusions were also made,
merely on the basis of purported mis-recitals both in the application and in
the recitals in the application (supra), about the FIR number in respect
whereof the truck was released on Sapurdari.
18. Furthermore, there is no consequentiality as such to the opinion
of the handwriting expert, wherein, he discloses that after making
comparisons of the disputed signatures, with the specimen signatures, his
concluding that both belonging to the accused concerned.
FINAL ORDER
CRR-2306-2003 and CRR-2418-2003
19. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit
in both the revision (supra), and, is constrained to allow the apposite
revisions. Consequently, the revisions are allowed. The impugned
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125119-DB
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004 (O&M), CRR-2418-2003 & CRR-2306-2003 (O&M)
concurrent judgments convicting, and, sentencing the petitioners, and, as
become recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, as well as by the
learned Appellate Court, are quashed, and, set aside. The petitioners is
acquitted of the charge framed against them. The fine amount, if any,
deposited by them, be, in accordance with law, refunded to them. The
personal, and, surety bonds of the accused shall stand forthwith cancelled,
and, discharged. The petitioners, if in custody, and, if not required in any
other case, be forthwith set at liberty. Release warrants be prepared
accordingly.
CRA-D-651-DBA-2004
20. There is no merit in the instant appeal, and, the same is
dismissed. The impugned judgment of 03.11.2003, passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana acquitting the respondent-Sukhwinder
Singh, after setting aside the judgment of conviction and the consequent
thereto sentence of imprisonment passed by JMIC, Ludhiana, is maintained
and upheld.
21. Case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with law, but
only after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.
22. Records be sent down forthwith.
23. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are, also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
18.09.2024
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
