Gurjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3501 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Gurjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 December, 2023

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2013
Gurjeet Singh                                  ..... Revisionist
                                 Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                           .....Respondent
Presence:
     Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate alongwith Mr. Basant
     Singh, Advocate for the revisionist/accused.
     Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General
     alongwith Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State
     of Uttarakhand.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2013, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist/accused was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.449 of 2006(98) State Vs. Gurjeet Singh, whereby, the conviction of revisionist/ accused was modified only from 420 IPC to 420/511 IPC, rest of the part of conviction was affirmed and modified as under:-

S. Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in-

     No.                                             lieu of fine
     1.  420/511      Six months'       Rs.1,500/-   2 months'
         IPC          R.I.                           additional S.I.
     2.  468 IPC      One years' R.I.   Rs.1,500/-   2 months'
                                                     additional S.I.
     3.   471 IPC     One years' R.I.   Rs.1,500/-   2 months'
                                                     additional S.I.

          Aforesaid    sentences        were    directed     to        run
concurrently.

3. The facts of the case are that the complainant-

informant Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector, Local Intelligence Unit, Udham Singh Nagar made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that the revisionist/accused- Gurjeet Singh has moved an application for seeking passport and during the inquiry of the said application- file no.402(2230)/98, which was conducted by Sub- Inspector, L.I.U. Lakshmi Narayan Tyagi, it came to the notice that the revisionist/accused has made interpolation in his date of birth, which was written as 01.07.1980 in Column-4 of the personal details form and changed it by cutting and overwriting to 01.01.1973. On further inquiry, it was found that in the family register of the revisionist/accused maintained at Gram Sabha Bhitaura, on page number 101, the date of birth of revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh was recorded as 1975. On further inquiry, it was found that revisionist/ accused-Gurjeet Singh passed High School Examination in the year 1997 from Guru Nanak Higher Secondary School, Sitarganj and in his high-school certificate/ mark-sheet, the date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1980. It is further contended by the informant that the revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh annexed transfer certificate of Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School (Junior High School), Sitarganj with his application form in proof of his date of birth, but when enquired regarding this certificate, it was found on the information given by Mr. Dhruv Narayan Sharma-Head Master, Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj that the revisionist/ accused-Gurjeet Singh, S/o Anokh Singh, R/o Bhitaura Police Station, Sitarganj, was never been student of the aforesaid school and no such transfer certificate was ever

been issued to him by the said school. In the scholar register, instead of name of revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh, the name of one-Rakesh Mittal, S/o Fateh Chandra Mittal, R/o Rampura, Sitarganj was entered at S.No. 788. According to the informant, the date of birth certificate annexed by Gurjeet Singh-revisionist/accused obtained from Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj was a forged document.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a first information report was registered against the revisionist/accused under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court for trial.

5. During trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW-1 Baldev Singh, PW-2 Laxminarayan, PW-3 Ajay Kumar Singh, PW-4 Sub- Inspector Ajay Pal Gautam, PW-5 Dhruv Narayan Sharma and PW-6 Constable Harimohan were examined and the documentary evidence, personal details sheet of the revisionist/accused Ext.Ka-2, photocopy of family register Ext.Ka-3, photocopy of letter from Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj Ext.Ka-4, scholar register and transfer certificate Ext.Ka-5, scholar register and transfer certificate of Guru Nanak Inter College Nanakmatta Sahib Ext.Ka-1, report sent to Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar Ext.Ka-6, copy of family register Ext.Ka-7, letter sent to Local Intelligence Unit Rudrapur Ext.Ka-8, form of register transfer certificate issued by Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj Ext.Ka-9, School Leaving Certificate Ext.Ka-10, scholar register and transfer certificate Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj Ext.Ka-11, Form of scholar register and transfer

certificate from R.K. Model School Sitarganj Ext.Ka-12, transfer certificate of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Nakadpur Ext.Ka-13, School Leaving Certificate Guru Nanak Inter College Nanakmatta Ext.Ka-14, certificate issued by Head Master Guru Nanak Higher Secondary School Sitarganj Ext.Ka-15, Certificate issued by Head Master Junior High School Nakatpura Sitarganj Ext.Ka- 16, charge-sheet Ext.Ka-17, chick FIR Ext.Ka-18 and G.D. of the case file Ext.Ka-19 were also submitted and proved by the prosecution.

6. After trial, learned trial court found the case of the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the revisionist/accused and he was convicted by learned trial court by reason of judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 as stated above. The revisionist/accused preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar, which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2013 and the conviction was affirmed (only under Section 420 IPC modified to Section 420/511 IPC), but the sentence was modified as stated in Para-2 of the judgment.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he accepts the conviction and sentence, as there is nothing on record to challenge the judgment on merit. But, at the same time, he made a submission that since the incident belongs to the year 1998, when the first information report was lodged against the revisionist/accused and he has undergone the turmoil of this pendency of criminal case against him and his

conviction by both the Court below. He further submitted that the revisionist/accused has no criminal antecedents either before lodging of the first information report of this crime or even during the pendency of the present criminal case against him. He is a sole bread earner of his family and the offence which has been committed by him, for which he was punished, was done by him in a childish manner only for the purpose that by making interpolation in his date of birth in the certificate, he would make an application for passport for which his parents had not to go before the passport issuing authority.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist/accused further submitted that by doing this act neither any wrongful gain was obtained by the revisionist/accused nor any wrongful loss was caused to the respondent- State by his action. No passport was issued to him on the basis of forged date of birth.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, it is strenuously submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist/accused that the provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act 1958') may be pressed into service and to postpone the sentence awarded by the Courts below and to release the revisionist/accused on the bond of good-conduct to be executed by him before the Probationery Officer, Udham Singh Nagar or before learned trial court.

10. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist/accused placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.154 of 2012 Harendra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand dated 29.08.2020,

wherein the Court has granted the benefit of the Act, 1958. Paras 9 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment, which contained Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments on the point are quoted below:-

"Para-9: In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola" reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under:

"7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act."

Para-14: In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi" reported in 2008 SCC (Cri.) 2, 768, in paragraph no.12, has held as under:

12. This litigation has been going on for the last 20 years and has been fought tenaciously through various courts, we are also told that the appellant who has had a good career throughout but for this one aberration has since been dismissed from service on account of his conviction. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, feel that the ends of justice would be met if we direct that the appellant be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist/accused that the Coordinate Bench of this Court while extending the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1958 has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been quoted in Para 10 of this judgment.

12. Learned Deputy Advocate General does not dispute the application of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1958, as in view of the provisions of the said Act, 1958, power can be exercised, while if a person is found guilty of committing an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, like nature of the case and character of the offender, the revisionist/ accused can be given benefit of the said provision.

13. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1958, is required to be appreciated with, the same is quoted hereinbelow:

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter

into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

14. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the power is there with the Court to release a person on a bond of good conduct by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act 1958, if any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but, at the same time, the Court will extend the benefit so provided under Section 4 of the Act, 1958 having due regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.

15. From the perusal of the record, there is no manner of doubt that the revisionist/accused was convicted under Sections 420/511, 468 and 471 of IPC and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six months, one year and one year respectively with default stipulation of two months' additional simple imprisonment, which were directed to run concurrently.

16. From the reading of the aforesaid Sections, it is clear that none of the Sections in which the revisionist/ accused was convicted, entail the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. So, the nature of the offences is such, where, this Court can give the benefit of the Act, 1958 to the revisionist/accused. The submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist/ accused regarding the fact there is other circumstance which would warrant the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the facts of the case,

i.e. the pendency of the criminal trial, appeal and revision against the revisionist/accused since 1998 and he has undergone the trauma of the criminal trial for the last so many years, coupled with the fact that the revisionist/ accused has no criminal antecedents and even prior and after the aforesaid crime, this is an only offence which has so far been registered against the revisionist/accused.

17. In this view of the fact, this Court is of the opinion that there is no useful purpose for sending the revisionist/accused to jail for serving the sentence awarded by the learned trial court which was subsequently modified by the appellate court.

18. It is informed that the revisionist/accused is in jail, as a non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 19.06.2023 by this Court, as learned counsel who appeared on behalf of revisionist pleaded no instructions in the matter.

19. In this view of the matter, the criminal revision is partly allowed. Judgment and order passed by learned trial court and modified by learned appellate court are hereby affirmed. The conviction as recorded by the learned trial court and modified by learned appellate trial court shall remain intact. However, so far as the sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the revisionist/accused shall be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the revisionist/accused within a period of one month, if not already deposited, from the date of receipt of this order, with the Court concerned. The concerned Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose such

condition(s) while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if accused/revisionist fails to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation, or is found violating any condition to be imposed, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bond of good conduct calling the accused/revisionist to serve out the sentence awarded by the Courts below. The revisionist is in jail. The revisionist shall be released on probation immediately once he executes the bond of good conduct before the court concerned as directed above.

20. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the LCR, be sent forthwith to the learned trial court for information/compliance.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.12.2023 PN/-