Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 322 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-23

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - In Criminal Case No.11 of 29.10.1998 in FIR No.23 dated 3.2.1997 registered at Police Station, Jagraon, by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, the petitioner along with others was convicted under Section 468, 471, 420, 419, 120-B IPC and sentenced as under: “U/s 468 IPC All the convicts are sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500 each and in default thereof, they shall further undergo SI for three months. U/s 471 IPC -do- U/s 420 IPC Convicts Mohinder Singh, Sohan Singh and Harbans Singh are sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof they shall further undergo SI for three months. U/s 419 read with Convicts Mohinder Singh, Sohan Singh and Sec 120-B IPC Harbans Singh are sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each and in default, thereof they shall further undergo SI for one month.” 2. As per the allegations, the petitioner being Nambardar of the village attested the Sapurdari bonds of one Sohan Singh who impersonated as Gurdev Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and got released tractor No.PBU 9949. While convicting the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon held that from the prosecution evidence, it stood proved that accused Sohan Singh had impersonated himself to be Gurdev Singh for getting sapurdari of the tractor in question and Mohinder Singh-petitioner had attested the sapurdarinama on the basis of which Sohan Singh got the said tractor released from the Court by impersonating himself as Gurdev Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and not in his name. 3. Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 14.11.2006 was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2011. However, it may be noticed that the other accused-Randhir Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal and accused-Sohan Singh was released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year and was further burdened with costs of Rs.1000/-. 4. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below gravely erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner as the offences against him were not proved. 4. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below gravely erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner as the offences against him were not proved. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on the file and has misread the same. The statements of the witnesses are highly discrepant and do not inspire confidence and thus, the prosecution evidence has been wrongly relied upon. 5. However, before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate his argument by pointing out any material irregularity in the impugned judgments. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact before this Court that the petitioner had attested the sapurdarinama for the release of the tractor submitted by Sohan Singh who impersonated himself as Gurdev Singh son of Ujjagar Singh. In this view of the matter, no error or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Courts below while convicting the petitioner for the offences. 6. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner was entitled to be released on probation by extending the benefit of probation as the main accused i.e. Sohan Singh has been released on probation. The argument raised is again without any merit as a perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana would show that said Sohan Singh-accused was totally an infirm person and was bed ridden. It was further noticed that Sohan Singh who was about 84 years of age was brought in the courtroom by 3-4 persons by picking him up in the arms and he was unable to sit on the chair and was allowed to lie on the floor of the court. Even he was not understanding the queries put by the Court and was unable to answer. Thus, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the said accused. 7. It may also be noticed that the petitioner is a Numberdar of a village and was expected to attest and verify the genuine people only and not an impersonator. Even he was not understanding the queries put by the Court and was unable to answer. Thus, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the said accused. 7. It may also be noticed that the petitioner is a Numberdar of a village and was expected to attest and verify the genuine people only and not an impersonator. The Lambardar acts as a very important link between the representative of the State and village community and other related functions in order to achieve the aims and object of welfare of village and the fact that Lambardar himself involved in a criminal case will shake the confidence of the integral and ancient institution of Lambardar. 8. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. 9. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------