Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 274 (TRI)

Raju Paul v. State of Tripura

2014-07-11

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 34(2) of 2004. By this Judgment, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and the Judgment of the learned Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. Case No. 1048 of 2001 convicting the accused under Sections 417, 465 and 471 IPC and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the offences has been upheld. The sentences ordered to run consecutively. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that a complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Shri Sushil Ch. Shom. The gist of the complaint was that in the first part of December, 2001, the petitioner Raju Paul approached the complainant for being given a job as a driver. While praying for a job, the petitioner had shown the photocopy of his driving licence to the complainant. According to the complainant, he on the basis of the said photocopy of driving licence engaged the petitioner as a driver, but asked him to produce the original driving licence. The petitioner promised the complainant that he would produce the original driving licence, but on pretext of the other he did not produce the same. When for more than 15 days the original licence was not produced, the complainant became suspicious and went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner and found out that the driving licence No. 14371, photocopy of which had been shown to him by the petitioner was not in fact issued in his name, but the driving licence of this number had been issued in favour of one Santosh Das on 30th November, 1981. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son went to the police station and lodged a complaint at the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was filed. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this petition. 3. Though in a revision petition, it is not necessary to go through the entire records, to satisfy myself I have perused the entire records. 4. P.W. 1 is the complainant. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this petition. 3. Though in a revision petition, it is not necessary to go through the entire records, to satisfy myself I have perused the entire records. 4. P.W. 1 is the complainant. He has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that he employed the petitioner after the petitioner told him that he had a valid driving licence. When the complainant asked the petitioner to produce the original licence, he first stated that the same was lying with his father, who had gone to Bangladesh. According to the complainant, he asked the petitioner again and again to produce the original licence, but when he failed to do so for more than a fortnight, he went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner along with the petitioner and when the photocopy of the driving licence was shown, it was found that no such licence exists in favour of the petitioner. He also states that after the complaint was lodged, the photocopy of the driving licence was recovered from the driver. P.W. 2 is the son of the complainant and has also fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 is the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, who was posted as Assistant Transport Commissioner on 25.03.2002. Her statement is quite evasive and does not help any party. P.W. 5, who at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Transport Commissioner has clearly stated that driving licence bearing serial No. 14371 was issued on 30th November, 1981 in favour of one Santosh Das. He has also stated that no such licence was issued in the name of Raju Paul. The evidence of P.W. 6, the investigating officer is only relevant for the purpose of proving the recovery of the licence. 5. Both the courts have come to clear cut finding of fact that the petitioner approached the complainant for a job. It is also proved that job was given to him by the complainant. According to the prosecution, the driving licence on the basis of which the petitioner obtained the job was a forged document and used by the petitioner for an illegal purpose. It is also alleged that by this method, the complainant was cheated into giving a job. 6. The case of the petitioner is of denial. According to the prosecution, the driving licence on the basis of which the petitioner obtained the job was a forged document and used by the petitioner for an illegal purpose. It is also alleged that by this method, the complainant was cheated into giving a job. 6. The case of the petitioner is of denial. This Court in revision petition cannot interfere with pure findings of fact. The fact that the accused got a job is not even seriously disputed by the accused. The prosecution case was that he had produced a forged driving licence photocopy of which has been produced on record. According to the prosecution, this photocopy itself is a forged document. The accused could have easily defended himself by proving his driving licence. He had chosen not to produce any material to show from where, he had obtained a driving licence. From the evidence on record, it is proved that no driving licence was issued in his favour. Therefore, it is more than apparent that the photocopy which he prepared is a forged document and it was used dishonestly and fraudulently for getting a job and as such, the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. However, I am of the view that no offence under Section 465 IPC is made out because it is not proved that it was the accused, who forged the document. No doubt, there is forgery, but the prosecution has led no evidence to show who actually committed the forgery. As far as the offence of cheating is concerned, one of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating is that any person by deception, fraudulent or dishonest induces the other person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not so deceived commits the cheat. The complainant was dishonestly and fraudulently deceived to give a job to the petitioner on the basis of the forged document and therefore, offence of cheating was committed. Therefore, on merits, I find no substance of this petition. 7. Lastly Mr. P. Roy Barman stated that the sentence is very harsh and may be suitable decreased. He has also prayed that the petitioner was a young boy of about 22/23 years at the time of incident and the occurrence took place many years back and therefore, leniency be shown. 7. Lastly Mr. P. Roy Barman stated that the sentence is very harsh and may be suitable decreased. He has also prayed that the petitioner was a young boy of about 22/23 years at the time of incident and the occurrence took place many years back and therefore, leniency be shown. The offence of cheating is punishable under Section 417 IPC for the period one year, or with fine, or with both. The offence of using forged document is punishable under Section 471 IPC and punishment is for a period of 2 years. The trial Court has in fact, awarded sentence of 1 year for each offence, but ordered the same to run consecutively. The trial Court did not even consider the question as to whether the petitioner should be grant benefit of probation. 8. I am of the considered view that this is a case where the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are applicable. However, before passing any order for release of the petitioner on probation, it is directed that the probation officer of Agartala shall submit his report as to whether Sri Raju Paul, Son of Sukumar Paul, resident of Joynagar, P.S. West Agartala, Agartala, West Tripura should be released on probation or not. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the probation officer concerned, who may submit his report latest by 20th August, 2014. List the matter on 27th August, 2014.