High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
RAM LAL v STATE - CRLR Case No. 166 of 1991  RD-RJ 917 (2 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
Ram Lal Versus State of Rajasthan
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 166/1991 against the judgment & Order dated 29.08.1991 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.45/87.
Date of Order : 02/05/2006
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. S.K.Pooniya on behalf of
Mr. Sanjay Mathur for the petitioner.
Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, public prosecutor for the State.
BY THE COURT:-
This criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.45/1987 whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 02.06.1987 passed by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 206/81. The trial court by the judgment and order dated 2.6.1987 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Under Section 420 IPC : 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 467 IPC : 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 471 IPC : 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 472 IPC : 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments and orders of the appellate court as well as of the trial court as also record of the trial court.
The petitioner was put to trial for the offences under
Sections 420, 467, 471 and 472 IPC on the allegation that while he was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in the office of
Executive Engineer, Evaluation Section, Mahi Bazaz Sagar
Project, Banswara, on 07.03.1981, he forged three bills bearing
No.11962, 11972 and 11964 by forging the signatures of
Executive Engineer Shri Inder Bablani and Treasury Officer,
Banswara and withdrew the amount from the State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur amounting to Rs.9715/-, Rs.12933.89 and
Rs. 13140 respectively.
Before the trial court, the prosecution has produced 21 witnesses. From the evidence of the prosecution, it has been proved that the bills Exs.P-6, 7 and 8 were found to have been forged by the petitioner and on the strength of these forged bills, a sum of Rs. 35,789.74 was withdrawn by the petitioner by deceitful means. The petitioner used the forged bills knowing it well that the bills have been forged by him and withdrawn the amount from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Apart from forging the bills, the petitioner also prepared a fictitious rubber seal of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.
I have gone through the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Vide Ex.P-82, the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Jaipur examined the bills and the signatures thereon. The disputed handwriting marked as X1, X2, X3, X4,
X5 and X6 were found to be the same which were on the bills.
The disputed handwriting and the admitted handwriting of the petitioner were found to be of same person. The rubber seal was also recovered from the petitioner which did not tally with the specimen rubber seal of the Bank.
Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory i.e. opinion of the handwriting expert, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner forged the various bills, used them as genuine knowing it well that the bills are forged and by fraudulent and deceitful means, withdrew the amount from the bank, some amount has been recovered from the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, both the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence is of 07.3.1981 and almost more than 25 years have elapsed since then; the petitioner has faced the protracted trial and thereafter appeal and revision, therefore, he submits that the sentence awarded may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has been facing protracted trial, appeal and then revision, in my view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from three years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed.
The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 472 IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands cancelled and he shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.