Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 421 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State Of Punjab

2000-04-20

V.K.BALI

body2000
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Vide orders dated 10th of September, 1987, Criminal Revision No. 887 of 1987 was ordered to be heard with Criminal Revision No. 830 of 1987. The three petitioners herein had filed separate appeals before the first appellate Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, decided appeals preferred by the petitioners by a common order. I also propose to decided these two Criminal Revisions by common order. 2. These two revisions have been directed against the order of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka dated 8th of May, 1987, vide which the petitioners herein were held guilty for the offences under Sections 419/467/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas Mohinder Singh was ordered to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count under Sections 419/467/468 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for period of three months under each count, Om Parkash and Charan Dass petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each under section 419 read with Sections 120- B/467/468 IPC on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months on each count. As mentioned above, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge met with no success. Whereas Om Parkash and Charan Dass have filed Criminal Revision No. 830 of 1987, Mohinder Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 887 of 1987. 3. Briefly put the prosecution case has been that Mohinder Singh petitioner by impersonating as Darbara Singh executed a general power of attorney Ex.PW- 4/A in favour of Naib Singh, his son-in-law. The power of attorney was attested by Charan Dass and Om Parkash petitioners and on 6.1.1982 Naib Singh is stated to have gone to the office of Sub Registrar, Abohar acting as attorney of Darbara Singh to execute the sale deed regarding the property of Darbara Singh but one Ajaypal Singh moved an application Ex.PW-3/A alongwith an affidavit complaining that the power of attorney was forged and his grandfather Darbara Singh had never executed any power of attorney in favour of Naib Singh. On the application aforesaid, the concerned Naib Tehsildar-cum-Joint Registrar conducted an inquiry and thereafter sent complaint Ex.PW-10/C to Police Station City, Abohar to register the case on the basis of which formal FIR under Sections 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded. During the investigation, thumb impressions of petitioner Mohinder Singh were obtained in the presence of PW-9 Mahil Singh for comparison with thumb impression on the general power of attorney at Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur. The Director, Finger Prints Bureau after comparison gave his opinion Ex.PW-12/A to the effect that all the thumb impressions were of the same person. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners were sent up for trial with the result indicated above. 4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner and Charan Dass, the prosecution examined PW1 ASI Hardial Singh, ASI Jagir Singh PW2, Ajaypal Singh PW3, Ravi Kumar Deed Writer PW4, Ramesh Chander Reader PW 5, Vijay Kumar Stamp Vendor PW6, Ramesh Chander Wadhwa Advocate PW7, Darbara Singh PW8, Mahil Singh PW9, Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar PW10 and Satwant Singh PW12. 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mohinder Singh while denying the incriminating material put to him totally denied the allegations of prosecution and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the case. In so far as Charan Dass, and Om Parkash petitioners are concerned, they stated that they attested the power of attorney at the instance of Naib Singh and Darbara Singh. In defence the petitioners examined Madan Lal DW1, Pal Singh DW2 and Mukand Lal DW3. 6. Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his arguments to the quantum of sentence only of petitioners Om Parkash and Charan Dass. 7. There is scope for reducing the sentence. In so far as Om Parkash and Charan Dass are concerned, they have already undergone agony of trial for more than 20 years. Apart from that, Om Parkash was 62 years of age in 1982 and Charan Dass was of 54 years. By now, Om Parkash should be around 80 years of age and Charan Dass should be of 70 years. It may not serve the ends of justice to send them in jail at this stage. Mr. Ghai informs me that these two petitioners have already served sentence of 15 days each. By now, Om Parkash should be around 80 years of age and Charan Dass should be of 70 years. It may not serve the ends of justice to send them in jail at this stage. Mr. Ghai informs me that these two petitioners have already served sentence of 15 days each. In their case, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, they are directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each. This amount of fine must be remitted by them within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is received, failing which they shall serve the sentence that was imposed upon them by the courts below. 8. In view of the modification to the extent aforesaid thus these revisions are disposed of.