Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 345 (UTT)

Satendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-10-15

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the present revision, the revisionist challenges the followings:- (i) Judgment and order dated 15.02.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 192 of 2014, State Vs. Satendra Pal Singh, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 420, 467 468 and 471 IPC and has been sentenced as hereunder:- (a) Under Section 420 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (b) Under Section 467 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (c) Under Section 468 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (d) Under Section 471 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month; And. (ii) Judgment and order dated 04.06.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2019, Satendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand by the court of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 15.02.2019, passed in the case has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. The revisionist applied for the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”). He produced High School certificate in support of his educational qualification. He was recruited also. Subsequently, it was reported that the certificate filed by the revisionist was forged. An report was made by the Deputy Commandant, CISF on 20.12.2012, based on which, FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was submitted against the revisionist. On 24.07.2014, the revisionist was charged under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. An report was made by the Deputy Commandant, CISF on 20.12.2012, based on which, FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was submitted against the revisionist. On 24.07.2014, the revisionist was charged under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Virendra Mohan Joshi, PW2 Sairsain Kumar, PW3 Sudeep Kumar Sinha, PW4 Ajresh Kumar, PW5 Bharat Singh Chaudhary, PW6 Sandeep Sagar and PW7 Manoj Kamboj. 5. The revisionist was examined under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) According to him, he had passed high school from Janta Inter College, Roopwas Pachgain Bulandshahr and the same certificate was filed by him at the time of recruitment. He claimed that the witnesses have falsely deposed against him. 6. After hearing the parties, by an impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2020 passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order passed in the case was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 7. It is a revision. At the time of hearing trial court record has also been summoned. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist would submit that, in fact, the revisionist had passed high school from the JIC Roopwas Pachgain Bulandshahr and certificate was accordingly filed by him at the time of recruitment. 9. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that the certificate, which is claimed to have been filed by the revisionist was not filed by him. It is argued that perhaps someone had changed the certificate filed by the revisionist. 10. Annexure 1 is the High School certificate, which is referred to, to argue that it is the certificate, which was filed by the revisionist. Annexure No.1 in the revision are high school certificate and the mark-sheet. According to it, the candidate had obtained 324 marks out of 600 marks. No other arguments have been raised. 11. Learned State counsel would submit that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and orders, and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the case, PW1 Virendra Mohan Joshi is examined, who is the informant. According to it, the candidate had obtained 324 marks out of 600 marks. No other arguments have been raised. 11. Learned State counsel would submit that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and orders, and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the case, PW1 Virendra Mohan Joshi is examined, who is the informant. According to him, after inquiry, the educational certificate filed by the revisionist was found forged and he lodged a report, which is Ex. A1. 13. PW2 Sairsain Kumar had given a dismissal order of the revisionist to the Investigating Officer. He has stated about it. 14. PW3 Sudeep Kumar Sinha had passed the dismissal order, which is Ex. A2. 15. PW4 Ajresh Kumar has also stated about certain documents, which he had presented before the Inquiry Officer. 16. PW5 Bharat Singh Chaudhary has proved some police report, including General Dairy, Chik FIR etc. 17. PW6 Sandeep Sagar, Assistant Commandant had inquired into the matter. He proved various documents, including inquiry report. One of the documents, which this witness has proved is Ex. A8. It is the application form of the revisionist, which he had filled at the time of recruitment. PW6 Sandeep Sagar has also stated that the certificate which was given by the revisionist at the time of his recruitment. It is 79b/2 on the record, which shows as if the revisionist passed High School examination from D.N. Inter College Meerut with Roll No. 157285. 18. PW7 Manoj Kamboj is Clerk of the School, from where, according to the revisionist, he passed high school examination. According to him, candidate having roll no. 157365 did not appear in examination of their school. He filed the Gazette notification of all the candidates, who appeared from their school in the relevant year. 19. In the revision, evidence is never appreciated unless the finding is perverse. Arguments have, in fact, not been advanced with regard to the appreciation of evidence. 20. What is being argued is that, in fact, the certificate which is alleged to have been forged by the revisionist was not filed by him. The revisionist had filed a certificate from JIC Roopwas Pachgain Bulanshahr. Ex. A8 in the case, is the application form of the revisionist. According to it, he passed the high school examination in the year 1983 and obtained 239 marks out of 500 marks. 21. The revisionist had filed a certificate from JIC Roopwas Pachgain Bulanshahr. Ex. A8 in the case, is the application form of the revisionist. According to it, he passed the high school examination in the year 1983 and obtained 239 marks out of 500 marks. 21. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist told that he passed high school from JIC Roopwas Pachgain Bulandshahr. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 22. PW6 Sandeep Sagar was Assistant Commandant CISF, who conducted inquiry into the matter. He had called Principal of D.N. Inter College Meerut. The revisionist had filed High School certificate showing that he passed High School from D.N. Inter College, Meerut. In fact, in the certificate presented by the revisionist the roll number recorded is 157285. The Principal of D N Inter College told during the inquiry that the certificate submitted by the revisionist is forged. PW6 Sandeep Sagar has proved his enquiry report. 23. PW7 Manoj Kamboj was asked about Roll No. 157365 of the D N Inter College. He said it did not belong to that school. In the certificate submitted by the revisionist roll no. is 157285. PW7 Manoj Kamboj has distinctly not stated about it. But, as stated, he produced entire Gazette notification of the relevant year. He was not asked by the revisionist that he passed high school from their school with Roll No. 157285. In fact, according to the revisionist he did not pass high school from D N Inter College Meerut. According to the revisionist, he did High School from JIC Roopwas Pachgain, Bulandshar. 24. Annexure 1 in the revision is the mark-sheet and a certificate, which according to learned senior counsel, is the educational certificate of the revisionist, which he had filed alongwith the application for recruitment. This is also palpably false in view of Ex.A8. In Ex. A8, the application form of the revisionist, which he had filed at the time of his recruitment, it is recorded that the revisionist has obtained 239 marks out of 500 marks. Whereas, according to the Ex.1, mark sheet which is placed in the revision, the candidate had obtained 324 marks out of 600 marks. It shows that, in fact, the revisionist did not file Annexure 1 to the revision at the time of his recruitment. The certificate which he had filed was forged. Whereas, according to the Ex.1, mark sheet which is placed in the revision, the candidate had obtained 324 marks out of 600 marks. It shows that, in fact, the revisionist did not file Annexure 1 to the revision at the time of his recruitment. The certificate which he had filed was forged. It the revisionist had any certificate, which was genuine, he could have proved it. But, it was not done. 25. The courts below have rightly considered the prosecution case and held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 26. Learned senior counsel would submit that the sentence of the revisionist may be reduced. The revisionist served the force for about 22 years. He has a family to maintain. 27. Having considered the nature of offence, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served, if the sentence is modified and the revisionist is sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment instead of five years rigorous imprisonment. 28. The revision is partly allowed. 29. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is upheld. 30. The part of sentence is reduced as follows:- (i) Under Section 420 IPC four years rigorous imprisonment. The fine shall remain unaltered. (ii) Under Section 467 IPC four years rigorous imprisonment. The fine shall remain unaltered. (iii) Under Section 468 IPC four years rigorous imprisonment. The fine shall remain unaltered. (iv) Under Section 471 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and fine shall remain unaltered. 31. The impugned judgments and orders are modified, in terms of sentence as indicated hereinabove. 32. Let a copy of the judgment along with lower Court record be sent to the Court below for compliance.