Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1298 (PNJ)

Randhir Singh v. Krishan Kumar Goswani

2004-11-30

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2004
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 500 I.P.C. by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 2.3.1993 for having defamed Kuldeep Krishan Goswami respondent who was the complainant in the learned trial Court. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Besides an amount of fine of Rs. 3,000/- was also imposed on him. 2. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the said judgment which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 12.4.1996. The conviction was up-held but the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment to a period of six months. The fine amount was maintained but the sentence in default of payment of fine was reduced to a period of three months. Hence the present Criminal Revision. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner as it has been recorded by both the Courts below. However, be prayed for leniency in the sentence awarded to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner is an old man of above 70 years of age. He retired as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He has faced trial since September, 1990. He is suffering from various medical ailments. Hence, leniency in sentence part of the judgment was prayed. 4. The learned A.A.G. Haryana could not dispute the factual position, although this prayer was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the private respondent. 5. After perusing the facts of this case and going through the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as also that of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, I am satisfied that no fault can be found with the conviction of the petitioner under Section 500 I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed. 6. In so far as sentence of the petitioner is concerned, I am satisfied that the petitioner is an old man and the facts and circumstances of this case do call for intervention in the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The modern trend in penology is also from retribution to reclamation and reformation. The petitioner has suffered mental agony on account of protracted trial. 7. The modern trend in penology is also from retribution to reclamation and reformation. The petitioner has suffered mental agony on account of protracted trial. 7. Therefore, it appears to me that regard being had to the age of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence is committed as also to the modern trend and the agony suffered by the petitioner, it is expedient that the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct. Therefore, instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any imprisonment, he is directed to be released on probation on his entering into a bound for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during this period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The requisite probation/surety bonds be furnished by him within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this judgment failing which this Criminal Revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 8. The amount of fine already imposed by the learned Courts below is converted into costs of proceedings which shall be payable to the complainant. 9. As a corollary of this case, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48206-M of 2001 under Section 462 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. It was ordered to be heard along with the main revision petition. 10. The case of Kuldeep Kishan Goswami respondent in the main criminal complaint was that Ranbir Singh had reached his office on 28.7.1990 and had read the false complaint against him in a loud voice in the presence of employees and other persons which lowered his image among his colleagues and office staff. Ranbir Singh had taken the plea of alibi and in support of his plea, he had produced the medical certificate issued by Dr. Gurdarshan Singh regarding the admission of Ranbir Singh in Orthopaedics Department of Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. The plea of alibi was disbelieved by the court and the petitioner was convicted for having committed the office punishable under Section 500 I..P.C. 11. Gurdarshan Singh regarding the admission of Ranbir Singh in Orthopaedics Department of Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. The plea of alibi was disbelieved by the court and the petitioner was convicted for having committed the office punishable under Section 500 I..P.C. 11. Krishan Kumar Goswami respondent thereafter had filed an application in the learned trial Court under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for proceeding against Ranbir Singh petitioner and Dr. Gurdarshan Singh, Head of the Orthopaedics Department, Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, for forging the record regarding the admission of Ranbir Singh in Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, on 28.7.1999. After the leading of the evidence, learned trial Court vide order dated 3.8.2001 accepted that application and reached the conclusion that Ranbir Singh and Dr. Gurdarshan Singh have committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 467 and 468 IPC and they be summoned to face the trial. 12. These proceedings are also an off-shoot of the main case. The version of the petitioner was that he was admitted in the hospital on 28.7.1990 which was disbelieved by the Court and the petitioner was convicted. If it had been accepted, possibly the result have been otherwise. Therefore, the medical evidence produced by the petitioner is directly connected with the main case in which he has already been punished. Although the principles of double jeopardy are not directly applicable but the principles underlying the same are attracted in the situation. 13. Dr. Gurdarshan Singh is reported to have died. The petitioner has already been punished in the main case and, therefore, in the interest of justice, no separate punishment is required for the alleged forgery of evidence. Therefore, application filed by the Kuldeep Krishan Goswami respondent under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is quashed in the interest of justice.