Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2185 (PNJ)

Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-08-02

S.S.SARON

body2010
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- The application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The appellant-applicant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 15.12.2009 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to various terms for each of the offences, the maximum being five years for the offence under Section 467 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The fine that was imposed has been paid. 3. In terms of the custody certificate, the applicant-appellant has undergone 4 months and 3 days upto 16.1.2010. Till date he has undergone 11 months and 15 days of sentence. He is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.15 dated 17.2.2000 registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 471 and 120-B IPC in which he is on bail. Another complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending in which he is also on bail. Besides, FIR No.8 dated 9.1.2004 has been registered against him at Police Station Sirhind in which he is also on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that in FIR No.15 dated 17.2.2000 registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana the parties have settled their dispute and they have filed a quashing petition in this Court (Annexure-A.1) and the applicant-appellant is petitioner No.3 in the said petition. As regards the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is submitted that the same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.4.2010 (Annexure-A.3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Insofar as the FIR No.8 dated 9.1.2004 registered at Police Station Sirhind for the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, it is submitted that the same has been quashed by this Court in view of the compromise between the parties vide order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure-A.2). 5. There are arguable points in the present appeal. The FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint dated 18.3.2003 submitted by one Ajit Singh and the complaint dated 8.12.2003 submitted by Bhag Singh regarding forged sale deed given by the appellant which the said complainant gave to Jatinder Singh, Tehsildar Fatehgarh Sahib on whose directions the FIR has been registered. 6. The FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint dated 18.3.2003 submitted by one Ajit Singh and the complaint dated 8.12.2003 submitted by Bhag Singh regarding forged sale deed given by the appellant which the said complainant gave to Jatinder Singh, Tehsildar Fatehgarh Sahib on whose directions the FIR has been registered. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that Surinder Singh (PW-6) was produced as a witness even though he was not cited as a witness and his statement was not even recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the said witness has no business dealing or money transaction with the accused, however, he has been examined as an independent witness regarding the transaction of the business of giving money allegedly by the complainant to the appellant-applicant. Besides, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has held that admittedly no direct evidence has come on the file with regard to the deed Ex.PA forged by the applicant-appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has established its case in all material aspects. It may be noticed that the applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and he has undergone about one year sentence of imprisonment. 8. There are arguable points in the appeal, inasmuch as, an independent witness has been cited for the first time during the pendency of the trial and was not cited as a witness initially and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded. Besides, the trial Court has accepted that there was no direct evidence on the record with regard to preparing of the forged sale deed Ex.PA. 9. In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. ------------